Mayor's Letter To B.c. Citizens Re: Pipelines

[dryfly]

Well that previous attempt did not work too well.

 

“USA stops importing Canadian oil and gas”

 

http://www.fortstjohn.ca/node/18711

 

Clive

[murray]

Clive, that is an excellent and informative read. It is easy to sit here in Alberta and think all of BC is against pipelines but this letter, written by the Mayor of Fort St. John, is full of information accompanied by facts.

[Fishcreek]

Excellent article well written, however, the problem is it is full of logic and common sense.

[trailhead]

Yes it is a good article but the environmental fanatics in the Lower Mainland and on Vancouver Island think Ft St John is in Alberta.

[professori]

I live in the lower mainland. I am far from an environmental fanatic but unlike the mayor of Ft St John, I live in one of the 2 ports that are going to be impacted most by increased pipeline (and hence tanker) activity. She is dead correct that 1487 of 197,000 vessels using west coast ports currently are tankers. What isn't stated is that if the pipelines get built and used to capacity, that number of tankers would increase to 35+ a day-almost a 10 fold increase in tanker traffic. We have already experienced a pipeline rupture in the Kinder Morgan pipeline in a Burnaby neighbourhood that spewed crude oil for a 1/2 hour that impacted 3 neighbourhoods homes and spilled over 50,000 barrels before it was turned off. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cleanup-continues-on-b-c-oil-spill-1.676094 I realize that many Albertans think this is nothing, but this isn't oil spilling into your wheat fields, or piney woods, but crude landing on people's homes. It also is crude (bad enough) not dilbit. I doubt many Albertans understand the impact a major spill would have on the harbour, nor do most understand just how busy this waterway is. There are many more vessels in the Vancouver harbour than tankers. There are all manner of cargo ships, cruise ships, a seaplane airport, ferries, not to mention hundreds of pleasure craft, from large yachts to 12' aluminum boats with fly anglers chasing salmon and sea run cutts. Every day! I wonder how many of you would accept the kind of risk of environmental damage to the Bow or Oldman rivers you ask us to quietly accept?

I fully understand the need for jobs in the province (and in BC's own oil patch) but why would building refining capacity closer to the source be such a bad idea. Then you would have a much easier sell when it comes to transporting the product by pipeline. I know the argument is that refineries are just too damn expensive to build but too expensive for who? Of course the oil companies make the most money by extracting goods and selling them to someone else to process (at nice, low, Asian labour costs). However would the Canadian economy gain greater benefit from Canadian workers extracting the goods (crude, bitumen, natural gas, whatever) and then more Canadian workers processing the materials and then selling the finished product? Before multinational companies should be allowed to extract our resources, they should be made to invest in the growth of our economy.

I just don't understand how the oil patch supporters think that they can pee in their end of the pool and that those of us at the other end should just shut-up and not complain that the water tastes bad. But then again I'm just an environmental fanatic from the lower mainland.

[Dangus]

Prof you granola-eating, tree-hugging, ganja-smoking hippy!

I agree with ya but where else is it going to go? Until Canada has another export to make up for the loss in GDP, we gotta sell oil. TBH pipe is probably safer for our waters than rail, as tracks in bc generally follow rivers. As far as I know, that pipe has had a pretty decent track record so far.

Being on both sides of the fence in my lifetime, I think that bc just sees themselves as "green" while forgetting that they're in first gear at a near standstill, working their way home down hwy 1.

 

funny there wasn't a protest against rail transporting caustic soda when it dumped and nuked the cheakamusbut a few homes get squirted with dirty Alberta oil, and everyone loses their minds

[DonAndersen]

Most of Western Canada is landlocked, and as such, has very limited access to supplies from other regions. Only British columbia has access to imported product as the current infrastructure was not designed to transport supplies to the Prairies from other regions. However, the Edmonton refineries supply petroleum products into the Vancouver market via the TransMountain pipeline (TMPL). In the event of a supply shortage in the Prairies, these Alberta refiners have the ability to balance supply and demand by importing product into Vancouver from Washington State, freeing up additional Edmonton production for consumption in prairie markets.

 

Product movements from refineries to terminals in the West are primarily done by pipeline. Movement by rail to the territories, B.C. interior and to Thunder Bay in western Ontario also occurs. Barges carry product from Vancouver to terminals on Vancouver Island and along the coast and from terminals in the Northwest Territories to more northern locations along the MacKenzie River.

 

Edmonton refineries provide about 50-60% of the petroleum product needs in the Vancouver market. The rest of the Vancouver area is supplied either by the Chevron refinery in Vancouver, or with product imports from the U.S. The West has some unique dual product pipelines. Enbridge Line 1 pipeline from Edmonton, Alberta, to Gretna, Manitoba, ships refined products plus natural gas liquids (NGLs) and synthetic crude. TMPL from Edmonton to Vancouver ships refined products plus all types of crude oil. The crude oil leaves deposits of substances, like sulphur, on the pipeline wall as it passes through the pipeline. These can be picked up by the clean products like gasoline that follow the crude oil through the line. Gasoline shipped via TMPL to Vancouver must undergo further treating prior to sale to remove impurities picked up in transit.

 

And Alberta does upgrade tar sands to gasoline for BC.

http://www.shell.ca/en_ca/about-us/projects-and-sites/scotford.html

 

And Alberta is building new refinery

 

http://globalnews.ca/news/2265665/alberta-refinery-costs-level-at-8-5-billion-on-track-for-start

 

 

Just so ya' know!

 

 

 

Don

 

 

 

 

[Flyfisher]

If Alberta wasn't somewhat of a one trick pony economy so reliant on oil it would likely take some of the sting out of unfavorable market conditions and pipeline line decisions when they come into play. Bron nailed it when he said "we gotta sell oil." in his post above.

 

Folks, BC isn't against pipelines per se, just stupid ones like the Northern Gateway proposal.

[Ricinus]

Actually the Canadian economy is also a one trick pony, heavily dependent on oil..

 

Mike

[trailhead]

Yeah all those pipeline spills in BC are terrible. All three of them since 1999. Funny that there is no mention of the 17 spills from other sources that occurred over the same time. The Chekmanus train spill one as previously mentioned was the ultimate environmental disaster, but from what I've read they restocked the annihilated steelhead population with hatchery fish, then they and the salmon runs will return to normal. Yeah railways are way safer than pipelines.

[Fishcreek]

Professori, I read that link you posted and it stated that the rupture was caused by a construction crew and their backhoe. How is this in any way the fault of the pipeline company? Of course, the first thing the crew is going to say is the pipe wasn't marked properly. CYA. I have pipelines running through my neighborhood and I am not worried. However, if a crew broke one digging my first response would not be to blame the pipeline owner.

[professori]

Professori, I read that link you posted and it stated that the rupture was caused by a construction crew and their backhoe. How is this in any way the fault of the pipeline company? Of course, the first thing the crew is going to say is the pipe wasn't marked properly. CYA. I have pipelines running through my neighborhood and I am not worried. However, if a crew broke one digging my first response would not be to blame the pipeline owner.

The point isn't who caused the break, the point I was trying to make is the rupture happened and the resulting issues with only a 30 minute spill. Do you suppose an earthquake won't/can't happen in that area, or that we won't have a tanker event. We aren't talking some remote area, but rather the very middle of 2 million plus people. I am fully aware that the risks is small, but the devastation that is possible with even 1 event isn't an acceptable risk IMO. I am not here to convince anyone who invests 90% of their future on the pumping and sale of petroleum products, nor am I unaware of the reliance we all have on petroleum as a society. I am merely pointing out the different perspective this side of the Rockies gives one, FWIW I grew up in Sherwood Park and lived in Edmonton until I was 27, I know first hand how reliant Alberta (fankly, Canada) is on petroleum.

[Dangus]

Couldn't an argument be made for a pipeline being "safer" being in a heavily populated area? The response time and volunteer effort would be far better than if it were out in the boonies.

You know, I've always wondered if pipelines have any failsafes in them? I mean, there's gotta be sensors in them monitoring flow and pressure? If something goes amiss an upstream valve shuts down. Or perhaps there's just too much upstream input to simply shut'er down?

Always wondered why pipes hemorrhaged so bad before they could get it under control.

[rrr123]

I have a hard time taking any of the what ifers in BC seriously .They pretend to care about the coastal waters but do or so say nothing that the City of Victoria still dumps millions of liters of raw sewage into the straight of Jaun de fuca daily .So don't lecture me about peeing in my end of the pool when you *hit in your end

[professori]

I was concerned when I posted that anything I had to say would be dismissed as simply and uninformed BC environmentalist fanatic. Those who know me (bron) know that is far from the case. However, I felt that by presenting the view of one whose immediate environment is most likely (admittedly low probability) to suffer a catastrophic impact, that there might be some understanding of why there is opposition to the expansion of petroleum and particularly, dilbit pipeline transportation west of the Rockies. Apparently my concern was well founded.

 

BTW, the federal, provincial and regional governments have all ignored the many public protests and demands to address the Victoria sewage issue, from the mid 70s to the present. http://www.victoriasewagealliance.org/ But, distasteful as the Victoria situation is, it doesn't pose anywhere near the environmental impact 1 tanker crash or major pipeline rupture would have.

[Sparkplug]

I live in the lower mainland. I am far from an environmental fanatic but unlike the mayor of Ft St John, I live in one of the 2 ports that are going to be impacted most by increased pipeline (and hence tanker) activity. She is dead correct that 1487 of 197,000 vessels using west coast ports currently are tankers. What isn't stated is that if the pipelines get built and used to capacity, that number of tankers would increase to 35+ a day-almost a 10 fold increase in tanker traffic. We have already experienced a pipeline rupture in the Kinder Morgan pipeline in a Burnaby neighbourhood that spewed crude oil for a 1/2 hour that impacted 3 neighbourhoods homes and spilled over 50,000 barrels before it was turned off. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cleanup-continues-on-b-c-oil-spill-1.676094 I realize that many Albertans think this is nothing, but this isn't oil spilling into your wheat fields, or piney woods, but crude landing on people's homes. It also is crude (bad enough) not dilbit. I doubt many Albertans understand the impact a major spill would have on the harbour, nor do most understand just how busy this waterway is. There are many more vessels in the Vancouver harbour than tankers. There are all manner of cargo ships, cruise ships, a seaplane airport, ferries, not to mention hundreds of pleasure craft, from large yachts to 12' aluminum boats with fly anglers chasing salmon and sea run cutts. Every day! I wonder how many of you would accept the kind of risk of environmental damage to the Bow or Oldman rivers you ask us to quietly accept?

I fully understand the need for jobs in the province (and in BC's own oil patch) but why would building refining capacity closer to the source be such a bad idea. Then you would have a much easier sell when it comes to transporting the product by pipeline. I know the argument is that refineries are just too damn expensive to build but too expensive for who? Of course the oil companies make the most money by extracting goods and selling them to someone else to process (at nice, low, Asian labour costs). However would the Canadian economy gain greater benefit from Canadian workers extracting the goods (crude, bitumen, natural gas, whatever) and then more Canadian workers processing the materials and then selling the finished product? Before multinational companies should be allowed to extract our resources, they should be made to invest in the growth of our economy.

I just don't understand how the oil patch supporters think that they can pee in their end of the pool and that those of us at the other end should just shut-up and not complain that the water tastes bad. But then again I'm just an environmental fanatic from the lower mainland.

 

Just a correction, with the proposed TMPL expansion, tanker traffic would increase to about 35 tankers per month, not per day. Most tankers are 1+ million bbls capacity; the combined transfer capacity of the existing TMPL and proposed expansion is about 1.2 million bbl/d, so enough to fill a tanker per day or so.

 

On the topic of refining in Alberta, there is no economic basis for this, as there is no large market for incremental refined products in W Canada, and other jurisdictions have their own refining capacity - hence they want crude (at crude prices), not refined products.

 

All that said, if I lived in the Lower Mainland, I'd probably be out there protesting against the TMPL expansion too. The story of "lucrative" markets for Alberta bitumen in Asia is basically BS; the Asians buy heavy crude from the cheapest sources globally (e.g., Middle East), and certainly won't be paying any premium for Canadian crudes. The biggest and best market for incremental Canadian crude (i.e., oil sands dilbit) remains the USGC, and TMPL expansion doesn't do much of anything for that.

[bcubed]

distasteful as the Victoria situation is, it doesn't pose anywhere near the environmental impact 1 tanker crash or major pipeline rupture would have.

 

So a daily occurrence is less impactful then a theoretical one?...

[sraak]

Sparkplug

I don't think anyone is under the impression we can produce cheaper oil than the ME. Isn't the point to sell more crude? The profit margins are what they are but may as well increase the volume to increase the revenue.

[Sparkplug]

Sparkplug

I don't think anyone is under the impression we can produce cheaper oil than the ME. Isn't the point to sell more crude? The profit margins are what they are but may as well increase the volume to increase the revenue.

 

The issue is with the characterization, often used by governments to try to garner support for pipelines like TMPL, that the pipe will open access to "lucrative" new markets. Asia is not a "lucrative" new market for Canadian crude; generally it is/will be a lower margin market than the USGC. So, why expand a pipeline like TMPL, and put the BC coast at incremental risk, when expansion of pipe capacity to the USGC (e.g., Keystone XL) instead would result in similar/better margins for our heavy crudes, and doesn't bring with it the marine risk?

[trailhead]

The latest forecasts are for the USA to be a net oil exporter by 2026. Currently the US is pretty much the only market for Canadian oil. Which is why West Texas Intermediate sells for $54/bbl and Western Canadian Select sells for $38/bbl.

[TroutPanther]

The latest forecasts are for the USA to be a net oil exporter by 2026. Currently the US is pretty much the only market for Canadian oil. Which is why West Texas Intermediate sells for $54/bbl and Western Canadian Select sells for $38/bbl.

Trailhead: your point about the discount on WCS to WTI is valid, but just to clarify, the US is forecast to be a net Energy exporter (natural gas, crude, & refined products collectively) not a net oil exporter, by 2026. They are still a net importer of crude from Canada. 2.81 mmbpd in 2015.

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/01/05/united-states-may-become-net-energy-exporter-by-2026-eia-reports.html?client=safari

 

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6

[Smitty]

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/12/21/opinion/garossino-why-kinder-morgan-isnt-hill-fight-and-die