219 replies to this topic

[Peeves]

http://ca.news.yahoo...-090007413.html

I certainly think it's necessary so long as our energy sources continue to demand an oil supply.
I think the 'disaster claims are hyperbole and pretty much nonsense. If there is a threat it will come from domestic ecoterrorists.

"a major target of Canadian and international environmental groups that are gearing up for a public relations battle that pits environmental protection against economic development.

Truncated, balance at link.

VICTORIA - It's being called a nation-builder, nation-divider and non-starter.

Depending on who's talking, the proposed Northern Gateway oil pipeline project has the potential to make Canada rich, while risking an environmental disaster on the scale of the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

Federal regulatory hearings for Enbridge Inc.'s (TSX:ENB) controversial and anticipated $5.5 billion twin pipeline proposal to carry Alberta crude oil to the West Coast for export to Asia start Tuesday in northwest B.C. in Kitimat, the proposed oil tanker port.

More than 4,300 individuals and groups have registered to speak at the hearings conducted by two federal environmental bodies over the next 18 months or more across British Columbia and Alberta.

Northern Gateway is being billed as the largest private infrastructure project in B.C. history.

But it's also a major target of Canadian and international environmental groups that are gearing up for a public relations battle that pits environmental protection against economic development.

The recent U.S. government decision to delay by at least one year the $7-billion proposed Keystone XL pipeline expansion project, connecting Alberta oil to Texas, has put the Enbridge proposal in the sights of international environmental groups.

First Nations are also joining the process, with at least 60 B.C. aboriginal groups vowing to fight the project at every step, but others signing deals with Enbridge, or seriously considering company offers of a 10 per cent stake in the enterprise.

"Single-handedly, (Northern Gateway) would add about $270 billion to the Canadian gross domestic product," said Paul Stanway, Enbridge's communications spokesman.

"You can buy a lot of hospitals and schools with that kind of money."

He said the project will create about 1,150 full-time jobs in Alberta and B.C. He said suggestions by environmental groups that earlier Enbridge estimates of as few as 45 full-time jobs were "nonsense."

[eyeball]

First Nations are also joining the process, with at least 60 B.C. aboriginal groups vowing to fight the project at every step, but others signing deals with Enbridge, or seriously considering company offers of a 10 per cent stake in the enterprise.

Those nations who are signing deals with Enbridge will ultimately determine whether this pipeline goes through or not. There is little else that really seems to matter in terms of land and marine use planning in British Columbia anymore. I think once a First Nation supports something industrial, like a fish farm for example, the rest of the approval process is mere paperwork.

I certainly don't think it's a must but it won't matter one bit what me or the rest of British Columbians or Canadians thinks if Enbridge gets a string of deals that correlate to the pipeline's route...the paperwork on on the rest of the process will fly like greased shit through a goose.

[dpwozney]

Griffiths urges capital-region mayors to promote Gateway pipeline
By Elise Stolte, edmontonjournal.com December 8, 2011

[trimmed]

Companies pipe raw bitumen because that’s more cost effective, said Nathan Lemphers, senior analyst at the Pembina Institute.

When a company upgrades the bitumen here, they have to ship each different product - aviation fuel, gasoline, diesel - as a separate batch or in a different pipeline. If companies upgrade it close to where they sell those final products, those costs are reduced.

“It’s more profitable for oil companies to build upgraders elsewhere,” Lemphers said.

Alberta will only get more upgraders if the provincial government makes local upgrading of a portion of the bitumen a requirement in the permitting process, he said. “It’s quite presumptuous to think that by building more pipelines, you’ll have more upgraders.”

[ complete article is at this link ]

[dpwozney]

When a company upgrades the bitumen here, they have to ship each different product - aviation fuel, gasoline, diesel - as a separate batch or in a different pipeline.

There is a difference between upgrading bitumen and refining oil.

An upgrader is a facility that upgrades bitumen into synthetic crude oil.

An oil refinery refines crude oil into petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, asphalt base, heating oil, kerosene, and liquefied petroleum gas.

When a company upgrades bitumen in Canada, the company can still export the upgraded synthetic crude oil without having to refine the synthetic crude oil in Canada.

So when a company upgrades bitumen in Canada, the company can still export the upgraded synthetic crude oil without having “to ship each different product - aviation fuel, gasoline, diesel - as a separate batch or in a different pipeline”.

[The_Squid]

Of course it is not a "must".

If the environmental costs are too high, the idea should be scrapped.

[Peeves]

Of course it is not a "must".

If the environmental costs are too high, the idea should be scrapped.

Environmental costs as compared to getting oil from where?

[The_Squid]

Environmental costs as compared to getting oil from where?

You are going to have to be a bit more clear about what you are asking...

[fellowtraveller]

I am having some diffucluty understanding the selective oppositon to the Gateway Pipeline.

Are the same opponents also lining up to shut down the massive, daily tanker traffic that has existed for decades on the East Coast, feeding oil from the Middle East/Venezuela refineries in Montreal and Saint JOnh New Brunswick? Are they opposing the pipelines that exist between Quebec and Ontario that supply crude to Central Canada and the nmassive gas pipelines that bring natural gas to Toronto from Alberta?

Are they boycotting and blockading the existing enormous tanker trafffic through the iNland Paasge from Valdez Alaska to the West Coast?

How is the East Coast of Canada now entirely different environmentally from the West Coast?

[The_Squid]

How is the East Coast of Canada now entirely different environmentally from the West Coast?

It may not be any different. THen again, one may have nothing to do with the other.... Maybe east coasters are willing to accept more risk to their environment than those on the west coast? Who knows....

[eyeball]

I am having some diffucluty understanding the selective oppositon to the Gateway Pipeline.

How is the East Coast of Canada now entirely different environmentally from the West Coast?

On the face of it I'd say moving oil down the east coast of North America probably makes more ecological sense because the weather systems of the planet move from west to east. When oil spills off the East Coast it'll blow away from North America out into the Atlantic and break up before hitting the other side. When it spills into the Pacific off the West Coast the oil will have little if any chance to break up before it makes landfall.

Of course Europe might take a dim view to that so the ethical thing from a North American perspective is to move North American oil, especially if it's from western NA, through the Pacific so we in North America are responsible when we lose control of it.

Of course I live right on the west coast and depend on the ocean for my livelihood so I obviously would like to see less oil being moved through my region, not more.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to move energy intensive manufacturing industries and raw materials to where the energy is, rather than the other way around? Perhaps we'd do better economically and environmentally if we offered really cheap energy to industries in exchange for locating here.

Edited by eyeball, 09 January 2012 - 06:26 PM.

[fellowtraveller]

Of course I live right on the west coast and depend on the ocean for my livelihood so I obviously would like to see less oil being moved through my region, not more.

I see, so you were not aware of the massive tankers that have been moving oil down your very own coast for decades, from a place called Alaska?

On the face of it I'd say moving oil down the east coast of North America probably makes more ecological sense

So a supertanker that runs aground near Montreal in the St Lawrence River would only foul Ireland coasts? I did not know that.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to move energy intensive manufacturing industries and raw materials to where the energy is, rather than the other way around?

It is so hard to convince places like Chicago to shut down and move everybody to , say, Red Deer. The most energy efficienet and safest way to move hydrocarbons like oil around is, surprisingly, in pipelines. Who would have guessed?

[dpwozney]

There is a difference between upgrading bitumen and refining oil.

An upgrader is a facility that upgrades bitumen into synthetic crude oil.

An oil refinery refines crude oil into petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, asphalt base, heating oil, kerosene, and liquefied petroleum gas.

When a company upgrades bitumen in Canada, the company can still export the upgraded synthetic crude oil without having to refine the synthetic crude oil in Canada.

So when a company upgrades bitumen in Canada, the company can still export the upgraded synthetic crude oil without having “to ship each different product - aviation fuel, gasoline, diesel - as a separate batch or in a different pipeline”.

It is not a “must” that “when a company upgrades the bitumen here, they have to ship each different product - aviation fuel, gasoline, diesel - as a separate batch or in a different pipeline”, as is claimed in this Edmonton Journal article.

So, in answer to the question “Northern Gateway a must?” in the thread title, it is not a “must” to export bitumen, as the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline would do.

Not only is it not a “must” to export bitumen, it should make more sense and should be more cost effective and profitable to export upgraded synthetic crude oil.

One problem with the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project is that the cost of pipelining non-upgraded high-viscosity bitumen, or heavy oil, from Alberta is much higher than the cost of pipelining upgraded low-viscosity light oil.

For the proposed Northern Gateway project, a westbound pipeline would transport both high-viscosity heavy oil or bitumen and diluent, and an eastbound pipeline would transport diluent.

Compared to the alternative of instead just pumping upgraded low-viscosity light oil on a westbound pipeline, power costs would be higher and more pipeline space would be required because:
(1) more fluid volume, a combination of diluent and heavy oil or bitumen, will be pumped; and,
(2) on the extra eastbound pipeline, diluent will be pumped uphill from sea level elevation to a higher elevation near Edmonton.

Power costs are the biggest part of Enbridge’s operating costs.

Despite the fact that the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project is not a “must”, Alison Redford claims that it “is of national importance and is critical to Canada's future economic strength”, according to this CTV article.

Edited by dpwozney, 10 January 2012 - 05:32 AM.

[Peeves]

It is not a “must” that “when a company upgrades the bitumen here, they have to ship each different product - aviation fuel, gasoline, diesel - as a separate batch or in a different pipeline”, as is claimed in this Edmonton Journal article.

So, in answer to the question “Northern Gateway a must?” in the thread title, it is not a “must” to export bitumen, as the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline would do.

Not only is it not a “must” to export bitumen, it should make more sense and should be more cost effective and profitable to export upgraded synthetic crude oil.

One problem with the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project is that the cost of pipelining non-upgraded high-viscosity bitumen, or heavy oil, from Alberta is much higher than the cost of pipelining upgraded low-viscosity light oil.

For the proposed Northern Gateway project, a westbound pipeline would transport both high-viscosity heavy oil or bitumen and diluent, and an eastbound pipeline would transport diluent.

Compared to the alternative of instead just pumping upgraded low-viscosity light oil on a westbound pipeline, power costs would be higher and more pipeline space would be required because:
(1) more fluid volume, a combination of diluent and heavy oil or bitumen, will be pumped; and,
(2) on the extra eastbound pipeline, diluent will be pumped uphill from sea level elevation to a higher elevation near Edmonton.

Power costs are the biggest part of Enbridge’s operating costs.

Despite the fact that the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project is not a “must”, Alison Redford claims that it “is of national importance and is critical to Canada's future economic strength”, according to this CTV article.

good stuff, thanks.

[fellowtraveller]

good stuff, thanks.

missing from that info is the fact that 60% of bitumen output from the oil sands is already upgraded in Alberta, into synthetic crude

[Peeves]

missing from that info is the fact that 60% of bitumen output from the oil sands is already upgraded in Alberta, into synthetic crude

How do the 'greeners' conclude that shipping oil is less a potential for eco disaster I wonder.