Jump to content


Photo

Enbridge pipeline: NEB hearings


35 replies to this topic

#1 jacee

jacee

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,492 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 01 February 2012 - 02:14 PM

We have a few threads touching on the National Energy Board hearings on the Enbridge pipeline, but I think it deserves a dedicated thread.

The Alberta oil industry was thrown a curve when TransCanada's pipeline through the US to ship oil from the Gulf was delayed by public protest.

Now they are pushing hard for Enbridge's pipeline to the west coast to ship from Kitimat.

West coast First Nations have collectively announced that they will not consent to the pipeline.

Harper has labelled Aboriginals and environmentalists "adversaries" of the government's oil agenda, while the NEB, by law independent of government, was called an "ally".

That's the status, with the high profile hearings now underway.

Perspectives ...

Industry ... pipeline or not?
http://www.ifandp.co...le/0015372.html

The business case for Gateway, providing the markets are and will be what is expected from 2016 onwards, is clear and on that alone the project should proceed. But as we have learned recently market conditions have a habit of jumping the rails of late.

Aside from all of the other issues, once the dust has settled and, for good or ill, the Gateway pipeline is built there is a little nagging doubt perhaps as to it maybe being the right pipeline at the wrong time. Will the Asia Pacific market several years down the line be as receptive to imported oil from Canada as it was?



From the hearings ...
The hearings averaged from 80 to 100 in- person spectators each day -- a typical number, said Enbridge spokesman Paul Stanway

"They've all been well attended, some more than others," said Stanway, who has attended every hearing to date, including an evening Prince George, B.C., meeting that drew more than 250 people.

As the project applicant, Stanway says it's not for Enbridge to comment on the length and effectiveness of the hearings.

"We are a regulated industry and this is the process we have to deal with," he said.

Before attending the Edmonton hearings, local resident Denis Budd was a staunch Gateway supporter, but now says hearing the testimony has changed his outlook on the project.

"I feel we really need the pipeline and I came here with that idea that we have to have one, end of story," said Budd choking up.

"I wasn't quite expecting the depth of emotion the First Nations people are presenting. I am saddened that they're talking about the loss of a way of life and they're trying to desperately get other cultures to hear of their loss. I think it's really important that given such a huge project that's really going have an impact far into the future, let me have an impact," he said.

The panel is scheduled to make 16 stops across B.C. and Alberta. The current round of hearings is for some 200 registered intervenors who are slated to give oral evidence testimonies, mainly from First Nations groups and elders.

More than 4,500 people are expected to give short 10-minute oral presentations starting in April. Enbridge will testify and address panel concerns later in the process.

If approved on schedule, the line wil begin construction in 2014 near Bruderheim, with bitum


http://m.torontosun....ateway-hearings

And ...

... cost benefit analysis of the pipeline. CJ's Norman Jacob detailed how for every 2.41 barrels of oil pumped through the pipeline, it would take one barrel worth of energy.

"The purpose of our presentation is to broaden the economic analysis, to include biophysica aspects," said Jacob. After the presentation, the three-member pane rejected the evidence stating it was not within the guidelines for this part of the review.

It is something former Prince George Mayor and current chair of the Northern Gateway Alliance Colin Kinsley agreed with."You've got to feel sorry for the Joint Review Panel members sitting up there having to listen to something when the rules were definitely broken by obviously some very professional gentlemen," said Kinsley. The panel is expected to return to Prince George when evidence based hearings begin.

http://hqprincegeorg...estimony-Tossed

Edited by jacee, 01 February 2012 - 03:46 PM.


#2 eyeball

eyeball

    Skookum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,411 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth

Posted 01 February 2012 - 04:42 PM

In BC...Christy Clark, reportedly said recently that, “British Columbia’s coast does not just belong to British Columbia, it belongs to Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario and the Atlantic provinces

Notice that Alberta's oil belongs to Alberta but BC's salmon belong to Canada.

Alberta's outrage at the thought of having the NEP shoved down their throat and Alberta's outrage at not being able to shove it's oil down Canada's is another example of just how misbegotten this contraption known as Canada really is. Oh well...

Perspectives ...

Industry ... pipeline or not?

I think it's clearly a done deal failing the US deciding they want it or someone emerges with a proposal to refine the bitumen in Canada. It boggles the mind that using the equivalent of 1 barrel of oil to ship 2.41 barrels of oil doesn't provide enough potential for the wizardry of innovation to find an alternative to spending 5.5 billion on a pipeline, never mind the cost to the environment and of course the sheer amount of pure acrimonious bad will this proposal is sure to generate.

How about we call it Harper's Oil-pipe?

#3 waldo

waldo

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,902 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 February 2012 - 04:20 AM

As you and I discussed earlier, what is the net impact of an increase of oil supply on the world market? [waldo: unless you're prepared to state, unequivocally, that your implied scenario's market supply won't be subject to typical OPEC like manipulations of that supply... in regards to industry favoured price controls/adjustments... your question has no foundation in reality]

But your response is lacking in a known reality……..Has OPEC ever faced real competition? Would they simply stop exporting oil? The prior oil shortages of the 70s were prior to the completion of the American’s SPR.

ok, Derek L... for now, let's set aside my musings on the likelihood of 'OPEC like' manipulations. In terms of your generalized implication that the net impact of an increase of oil supply on the world market would reduce oil prices, care to offer comment on this Enbridge forecast as appeared in its Northern Gateway pipeline application to the NEB review panel:

Enbridge forecast a $2 to $3 annual increase in the price per barrel of crude in its pipeline application to the joint National Energy Board-Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency panel. Enbridge spokesman Paul Stanway confirmed the projected price increase in the application; “The price of oil in Canada is estimated to increase $2 to $3 per barrel (annually) as a result of market diversity and exposure to global pricing,” he said.

... and just what affect would an annual $2 to $3 increase in the price per barrel have on consumers, businesses and the Canadian economy?

#4 Topaz

Topaz

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,273 posts

Posted 02 February 2012 - 07:44 AM

Here's the article that Waldo talked about the increase prices in oil. Seems like this is just like the wind turbines. The prices of hydro has gone up, just like the wind turbines were going up, so it seem very possible that our gasoline prices will sky rocket too. http://www.edmontonj...7599/story.html

Edited by Topaz, 02 February 2012 - 07:45 AM.


#5 jacee

jacee

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,492 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 03 February 2012 - 11:47 PM

http://www.themarkne...line-opposition

The truth is, the Harper government has only itself to blame for the breadth and depth of the opposition to new pipelines that would ferry crude from the oil sands in Alberta.

If the Harper government were not so consistently obstinate on federal climate policy, people like me (a climate scientist who has long been wary of the NIMBYism of environmental groups) might not become vociferous opponents of projects like Northern Gateway.

We are forced to oppose individual carbon-intensive projects because the government refuses to listen to scientific or economic reason on climate change.


#6 waldo

waldo

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,902 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 February 2012 - 12:15 AM

http://www.themarknews.com/articles/8114-obstinate-harper-fuels-pipeline-opposition

The truth is, the Harper government has only itself to blame for the breadth and depth of the opposition to new pipelines that would ferry crude from the oil sands in Alberta.

If the Harper government were not so consistently obstinate on federal climate policy, people like me (a climate scientist who has long been wary of the NIMBYism of environmental groups) might not become vociferous opponents of projects like Northern Gateway.

We are forced to oppose individual carbon-intensive projects because the government refuses to listen to scientific or economic reason on climate change.

bazinga!

Many of those opposed to the pipeline aren't opposed... to the pipeline. They're opposed to the Conservatives complete and total failure in working towards emission control requirements. They're opposed to the complete absence of required tarsands environmental monitoring, analysis, assessment and reporting. The pipeline... the tarsands, to many, are simply symbols of the Harper Conservatives lack of any semblance of action in working to meet even it's lamest of promised commitments... or the failure to even provide legitimate and required traditional tarsands environmental impact procedures.



#7 jacee

jacee

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,492 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 04 February 2012 - 03:46 AM

http://www.pqbnews.c.../138233704.html

Fraser, who worked for a time in the oil industry, said the pipeline would have half a million barrels of highly corrosive bitumen going through it — bitumen which, if there is a leak, would not float, but rather, sink to the bottom of any watercourse it enters, making cleanup virtually impossible.

“There is no cleanup,” Fraser said.“It’s heavier than water and so will sink. The only cleanup is to remove the ground from under the sinking bitumen. There has been no great invention on how to clean this stuff up.” Fraser said.

Edited by jacee, 04 February 2012 - 09:58 AM.


#8 greyman

greyman

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 134 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 06:46 AM

Notice that Alberta's oil belongs to Alberta but BC's salmon belong to Canada.

Alberta's outrage at the thought of having the NEP shoved down their throat and Alberta's outrage at not being able to shove it's oil down Canada's is another example of just how misbegotten this contraption known as Canada really is. Oh well...


BC's salmon is Canada's? And where does most of the income generated from that industry go? Something tells me it stays predominantly in BC, as well it should.

And I don't think Alberta is exactly "shoving" its oil down the throat of all Canadians. We gotta get it somewhere.

#9 jacee

jacee

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,492 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 04 February 2012 - 10:14 AM

BC's salmon is Canada's? And where does most of the income generated from that industry go? Something tells me it stays predominantly in BC, as well it should.

And I don't think Alberta is exactly "shoving" its oil down the throat of all Canadians. We gotta get it somewhere.


I think she said BC's coast belongs to all Canadians, and it's true we would all be horrified by oil spills destroyed any part of that national treasure.

The oil pipeline is being shoved down the throats of all Canadians, but especially BC, by the Alberta/Ottawa oil lobby . And it isn't clear there are benefits for BC that outweigh the risks.

I don't think this is a slam dunk at all.

#10 Scotty

Scotty

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,215 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Blondes, brunettes, redheads, money and yachts!

Posted 04 February 2012 - 10:19 AM

Harper has labelled Aboriginals and environmentalists "adversaries" of the government's oil agenda, while the NEB, by law independent of government, was called an "ally".


It's interesting how powerful the ideologues of the Left believe Harper is. No matter what the government does at whatever level, they always assume it was Harper himself doing it. Any decision taken was apparently done on his personal instructions, any report that's written by any of the tens of thousands of public servants or by any member of the Conservative Party is automatically Harper's own creation. Apparently he is omniscient and in total control of every single public servant and member of the Tory party right across the country.

That being the case, why would they not want such a massively capable man running the country?
It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy

#11 Scotty

Scotty

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,215 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Blondes, brunettes, redheads, money and yachts!

Posted 04 February 2012 - 10:21 AM

The oil pipeline is being shoved down the throats of all Canadians, but especially BC, by the Alberta/Ottawa oil lobby . And it isn't clear there are benefits for BC that outweigh the risks.

I don't think this is a slam dunk at all.


Given how our manufacturing has collapsed, the taxes and jobs and other economic benefits from the oil industry are the only thing keeping this country on its feet. We're now selling oil at a deep discount in the US because of oversupply and that's costing our economy tens of billions. Thus finding a way to benefit from oil at the world price is indeed a slam dunk for anyone with even a glancing familiarity with economics.
It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy

#12 greyman

greyman

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 134 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 10:33 AM

I think she said BC's coast belongs to all Canadians, and it's true we would all be horrified by oil spills destroyed any part of that national treasure.

The oil pipeline is being shoved down the throats of all Canadians, but especially BC, by the Alberta/Ottawa oil lobby . And it isn't clear there are benefits for BC that outweigh the risks.

I don't think this is a slam dunk at all.


While I would much rather put the ky-bosh on any and all oil pipelines than any currently proposed, I also recognize we are nowhere near able to get off oil.

Understand that, how exactly would you want our oil procured, and likewise, distributed throughout the country?

In short, we need the oil, all of us...so again, it has to come from somewhere. Consider the alternative...it ain't pretty.

#13 waldo

waldo

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,902 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 February 2012 - 10:35 AM

That being the case, why would they not want such a massively capable man running the country?


I knew MLW member Mr. Canada. Scotty, you're no Mr. Canada!

#14 greyman

greyman

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 134 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 10:41 AM

Given how our manufacturing has collapsed, the taxes and jobs and other economic benefits from the oil industry are the only thing keeping this country on its feet. We're now selling oil at a deep discount in the US because of oversupply and that's costing our economy tens of billions. Thus finding a way to benefit from oil at the world price is indeed a slam dunk for anyone with even a glancing familiarity with economics.


The only reason any nation sells anything to the U.S. at a "deep discount" is because they carry a big stick. Fortunately for us, their big stick will require an increasing amount of our oil to operate, and the discounts may become shallower over time.

#15 Scotty

Scotty

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,215 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Blondes, brunettes, redheads, money and yachts!

Posted 04 February 2012 - 10:45 AM

The only reason any nation sells anything to the U.S. at a "deep discount" is because they carry a big stick. Fortunately for us, their big stick will require an increasing amount of our oil to operate, and the discounts may become shallower over time.


The reason we sell oil at discounted prices is because our oil is piped into the midwest, where the refineries are saturated. It's the law of supply and demand. Too much supply there begats lower prices. This is the same reason why natural gas is so cheap here in north America but sells for six times higher in Asia.
It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy



Reply to this topic