Enbridge

[pkk]

Get in there and vote: should Enbridge be approved?

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/...e-approved.html

 

I am all against it.

PK

[Guest 420FLYFISHIN]

its a hard one when it comes to economic growth vs. environmental impact vs. possibility of a disaster. How many people will be working and driving the economy but how much will the environment have to pay just in the construction ie. service roads,water crossing,...

[duanec]

vote...as in fill out the survey?

 

i think things like this are an inevitability. cash is king. the big players will eventually see enough profit forecasts that it will happen. we are not using it all here...it's got to go somehwere somehow someway, because it's cash sitting in the ground. that's the facts.

so the developers will look for the least expensive solution vetted against the lowest risk profile. things are considered like regulatory process, permitting, public/political reaction or pressures. environmental impacts. as well as things like access to established infrastructure. demands sometimes are made to engineer out more risk, but then it becomes less attractive cost wise. so it goes another way. but go it will.

personally i do hope there's enough opposition that it moves. i'm not a fan of the thought of a spill [another inevitability] in such a sensitive area.

i wonder what the environmental big picture numbers look like if you trucked/train that amount of product to the coast vs a pipe. greater/lesser impact on the environment/spill risk? better or worse? don't know. there was the rail spill at wabamun recently and not too long ago that one that dumped some chemical in a river in bc and wiped it out.

 

if there is an actual vote, i will excercise my rights as such. i guess a survey is something the politicians will use to gauge how they swing, but when jobs are created and people can feed thier kids and buy big toys and taxes stay low, that's pretty popular too.

 

[Jayhad]

From what I have read this will export 40,000 jobs out of Canada. I don't know where that # comes from and I'm trying to educated myself on it. As well Canada is a net importer of the fuel. This is our oil, not Enbridge's, if they want to degrade our environment why not build a massive refinery in Fort Mac? This oil should be kept here, but that won't line pockets.

 

I hate to say it but the government I voted for is going to do anything they can to ram this through on the belief that this is an economic issue for our nation, but one mistake could lead to disaster. Even BC ferries can't guarentee 100% safety navigating the area that the port will be in.

 

Why can't this pipeline be run to vancouver or tswassen where ports are already estabished, there is still a potential for environmental impact but a good portion of it will be in developped areas?

[Ricinus]

I think the tankers operating in the Douglas Channel are a major concern also.

 

Mike

[pkk]

vote...as in fill out the survey?

 

Sorry to confuse you. I meant fill out the survey.

 

[duanec]

As well Canada is a net importer of the fuel. This is our oil, not Enbridge's, if they want to degrade our environment why not build a massive refinery in Fort Mac? This oil should be kept here, but that won't line pockets.

agreed...still a mystery to me why there aren't more refineries up here...but don't think ft mc. is the right answer...shipping/piping refined fuel vs. the raw material is even more of an issue?

don't know. i'm not very smart compared to those big oil execs. like you trying to become educated and develop an informed opinion that balances economics & growth while thinking of the long term/bigger picture, the environment and the world my kids get to inherit.

 

Why can't this pipeline be run to vancouver or tswassen where ports are already estabished, there is still a potential for environmental impact but a good portion of it will be in developped areas?

because of the costs involved and the risk to people and property i think is the short answer.

 

I think the tankers operating in the Douglas Channel are a major concern also.

very good point.

[Der]

I hate too talk politics on internet but have a few points I,d like to bring forward. There is a weather warning for the northcoast ,Terrace,Kitamat and Rupert up right now . If a person watches there is severe weather up there on coast over 100 days a year. They are talking of 225 ships a year so 450 trips down Douglas Channel . Then off coast and to China. BC lost a ferry near mouth of Douglas Channel through operator error so it can happen . When you can,t see 200 ft on a 1000 ft boat in rough water in a narrow channel,well can a tug stop a ship that size. I think a grounding is inevitable,it,s just when and how bad.

Point 2 There is a natural gas line to Rupert . It comes out to Terrace along the Copper River and I think goes up the Telkwa from Smithers . Checked map it does. Anyway it was put in in mid 50,s and has leaked I believe at least 20 times. The town of Prince Rupert has been with out Natural Gas for extended periods of time at least twice in last 5 years, usually from mud slides severing the pipe line. I have been up the Copper, Kitamat and Mourice Rivers till the road runs out and it is rough country with heavy rain and snow on coast side. Why would Enbridge be able to build a pipe line that is safe when existing one leaks say once every ten years on average and takes some times 2 Weeks to fix. Christ the highway is closed from mudslides and washouts and avalanches probably 5 times a year and they can drive to those disasters on pavement from both sides. This isn,t like running a pipe line through farmers fields by Edmonton. I know some of you guys have spent time up there chasing steel. It is last Major river in western North America with a reasonably? intact steelhead run left. Once its gone we will be Steelheading in Ontario.

Endbridge has a less than great track record when it comes to leaks and response times but trust them they will do this one right!. I don,t think we could out fox everything nature can throw at us so how can this be different.

Here is a link to a report from Steelhead society ,written by someone more informed and literate than me. I found it on Speypages.

http://www.steelheadsociety.org/sites/defa...%20-%20SSBC.pdf

[bigbowtrout]

Can't we just dig straight down to China?

[reevesr1]

Refining the oil here sounds like a wonderful idea. Not sure what the size of the refinery would need to be, but from what little research I did, Canada currently exports 1.1 million barrels per day to the US (from Wiki, can't vouch for accuracy). I also found that the Alberta gov planned a 50,000 bbl/day new refinery, but plans are on hold. As are all plans for new refineries in Canada (again, this is from quick searches, but a good source, The Economist).

 

I don't know what the number is for Canada, but there has been no new refineries built in the US since 1976. The industry feeling is that it would be near impossible to build one under current regulatory climate. I think there have been a few built here, but the number is very low. So the thought that 1 million barrels/day plus of refining capacity is going to be built for "value added" is likely a pipe dream (pun intended). It would be a great idea, but not likely to happen.

[Der]

Refining the oil here sounds like a wonderful idea. Not sure what the size of the refinery would need to be, but from what little research I did, Canada currently exports 1.1 million barrels per day to the US (from Wiki, can't vouch for accuracy). I also found that the Alberta gov planned a 50,000 bbl/day new refinery, but plans are on hold. As are all plans for new refineries in Canada (again, this is from quick searches, but a good source, The Economist).

 

I don't know what the number is for Canada, but there has been no new refineries built in the US since 1976. The industry feeling is that it would be near impossible to build one under current regulatory climate. I think there have been a few built here, but the number is very low. So the thought that 1 million barrels/day plus of refining capacity is going to be built for "value added" is likely a pipe dream (pun intended). It would be a great idea, but not likely to happen.

 

 

So when the existing refinery,s cannot supply Canada with gas and diesel we will just stop using it?? Are we going to refine in China and then import our fuel. I must not understand this as seems unbleive-able we can,t build a refinery that will pass regulations of today? On a different point here is link to debate over outsiders funding groups opposed to the plan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toR3Tt9fS2E

[reevesr1]

So when the existing refinery,s cannot supply Canada with gas and diesel we will just stop using it?? Are we going to refine in China and then import our fuel. I must not understand this as seems unbleive-able we can,t build a refinery that will pass regulations of today? On a different point here is link to debate over outsiders funding groups opposed to the plan.

 

Believe it or not, has't been one built in the States in 35 years. They just retrofit old ones. I also think that there is no chance that they could totally decommission an old one either. No way to reclaim the land, particularly since most of the plants are over 50 years old now and operated under different rules back in the day.

 

And you could build a plant to pass regulations. It would just cost a poop load. Cheaper and faster to export. I agree that it would be wiser to refine here. Just will be a long time before there is any capacity to do so, if ever.

 

[PGK]

.

[sstoyberg]

If big oil thought they could make a buck on building a refinery in Alberta it would be happen. Maybe the government (aka the tax payers) should subsidize a refinery project in Alberta. The fact of the matter is the same people who hate any new development would also hate the refinery. Not to mention Newfie labour isn't as cheap as it used to be.

[PGK]

.

[jonn]

That's the problem.....why should we be concerned with how much money big oil makes? It's Canada's oil. Not Enbridge's. The government controls what happens to it. They should be telling 'big oil' to refine it here and provide jobs to Canadians. Piping it direct to asia is exporting it in its cheapest form. Exporting raw product didn't work so well for the lumber industry. I run out of fingers if I start counting off the sawmills in northern BC that have shut down over the last 5 or 6 years. Force them to refine it here, stop subsidizing them, stop shipping out raw resources. Piping out raw resources kills our economy. Good for big business, good for harper, but bad for joe taxpayer. It's not about hating all development projects, it's about hating shitty ones that screw Canadians. All risk, no reward.

 

For starters, it's not Canada's oil. It's who ever pays to get it out of the ground! And you should be concerned about how much money "big oil" makes. Because if it starts to cost to much, they'll just pick up there roots and go else where. It's not like Alberta is the only provider of oil in the world. I'm not saying Canada should just bend over, but if we start demanding they buy refined oil from us, they WILL go else where! And before anyone says great, let them go rape, pillage and destroy some where else. You really need to consider how much of an impact it would have on this country. I would also have to agree with Rick r, it really isn't economically feasible for us to have our own refineries here. Maybe for Canada's personal use, but not for export. The cost behind building them would be huge, as would the evrionmental impact. Besides, YOU STILL NEED TO TRANSPORT THE REFINED PRODUCT SOME HOW. It's not like bulk oil gets shipped in 1L containers!

 

 

[PGK]

.

[jonn]

Wow, you honestly think Alberta is the only oil strong hold left. Hate to tell you but you are sadly mistaken. There is oil all over the world. Don't get me wrong, the sands do house a lot of oil, but come on.

Are you honestly going to try and blame the loss of manufacturing in ON. on oil prices. Get off the ganja, manufacturing has been out source overseas and Mexico due to the cost of labour. In todays economy you can't afford to work on an assembly line for 6 bucks an hour. The companys make more money and get more production by outsourcing, it's happening every where. Next your going to tell me Hardy had to cut production in England because of BIG OIL.

[sstoyberg]

It's called Rate of Return! Yes that is what "Evil Big Oil" requires. You would be surprised how thin the margin actually is. Don't fool yourself we do compete with the world.

While everyone is all up in arms over this Enbridge line a gas line is quietly being proposed for a LNG port in Kitimat. Where is the OutRage against it?

[PGK]

.

[jonn]

Your right, 12yrs in the industry is not enough. I'm going to hit the books tonight, a couple of magazine articles and I should be up to pair with you! Thanks for the advice.

 

I'm sorry for hijacking B.T.W. and just to clairify, I'm not pro pipe line. I think it's a huge mistake and if it goes through, there will be intigtaty issues with it in the future. There always is.

 

[ginger]

Lead article in the Nat. Post today contains some interesting discussion of the economics of refining bitumen here and may give a little counterpoint to the article by Weibo apologist and anti-oilsands campaigner Nikoforuk referred to above.

[Guest NamasteMushroom]

Interesting video.