Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Keepitsimple

Pipeline Politics - Is Canada the only "sucker" Nation?

Recommended Posts

We're ahead of the curve! :-)

.

By transporting oil in a more dangerous way, and funding monarchies who don't let women drive or vote?

Jacee, always the progressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The alternative to fossil fuels is fossil fuels. I can see we have a language gap to overcome here.

No it's a reality gap. I see that's it's reality, and you I guess believe Quebec powers it's cars with good wishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP, here is a comprehensive answer published today to your question "is Canada the only sucker nation?".

The answer is an emphatic "YES".

http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/columnists/gary-lamphier-liberals-new-climate-test-latest-hurdle-for-pipelines

Does Canada have a death wish? That’s how a veteran investment adviser I know characterizes this country’s apparent desire to cripple its own energy industry in some weirdly misguided ideological campaign to save the planet.

The Trudeau government’s latest move — to add some ill-defined climate test to the lengthy, years-long regulatory review process that already exists for new oil pipelines — makes him apoplectic. No wonder.

No other major oil exporting nation would wilfully impose so many obstacles on the development of the struggling energy industry, a vital source of wealth in this country for the past several decades.

Certainly not the U.S., despite President Barack Obama’s green rhetoric. Definitely not Vladimir Putin’s Russia, which is shipping more oil than ever to China. Not Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or any of the other members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Not Alberta competitors such Mexico or Venezuela. Not Brazil, Australia or Indonesia. No one

We are fools that have elected a fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP, here is a comprehensive answer published today to your question "is Canada the only sucker nation?".

The answer is an emphatic "YES".

http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/columnists/gary-lamphier-liberals-new-climate-test-latest-hurdle-for-pipelines

We are fools that have elected a fool.

More or less yep.

We want to live in a fantasyland where we continue to have a modern existence requiring energy, and don't extract or use fossil fuels. So we pretend we are doing something by stopping oil transport in Canada, while simultaneously consuming loads of oil from other countries. And this is for the 'environment.' It's schizophrenia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alberta needs more industry/jobs/markets.

Refine & manufacture there.

.

And then build ten new pipelines to move each of the separate products across the country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being able to get our product to Asia and Europe - while the US does.....while selling at a discount to our only customer is virtually a standstill, wouldn't you say? How long is your estimate for when we might be able to effectively move our product to other markets?

When gold prices drop and the cost of extraction becomes greater than world price then gold mines close. When copper prices drop and the cost of extraction becomes greater than world price then copper mines close.

At what price per barrel of oil on the world market does the tar sands operation become a loss?

Edited by Big Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alberta needs more industry/jobs/markets.

Refine & manufacture there.

.

Unless you've changed your tune on just about everything, you seem to know absolutely nothing about how a refinery works. Petroleum Gas, regular gasoline, Naptha, Kerosene, Diesel, Lubricating Oil, Fuel Oil and a myriad of residual products are produced at refineries - and they all have to be delivered to the markets that they service - by pipeline, rail, truck or water. Here's a primer - let me know your thoughts on refineries after you read it:

Crude is pumped out of the ground into pipelines or tankers/barges for transport to a refinery. Once it arrives at the refinery, it's processed into thousands of products from the obvious gasoline and diesel to cosmetic products like conditioners and lotions. The refinery then releases the product after quality testing. At this point, there are a number of ways to move the product, but the most common and cheapest is pipeline. Products are pumped into the pipeline one after another (they don't mix in the pipeline, it's actually a pretty cool process) so that the pipeline never stops and product can flow out the "other end". There are dozens to hundreds of "other ends" to the pipeline, terminating at large storage terminals across the country. The pipeline operators open the valves and the products pump into the tanks where they are stored until needed, which typically isn't very long, only a few days.

When a gasoline station needs a delivery, a tanker drives to the terminal, hooks up to hoses at the loading rack and the driver punches codes into a computer that load the correct fuels onto the truck. If a station is branded, such as Shell or Exxon, special additives are injected during loading which make the fuel unique to that brand. Up until then, gasoline is gasoline. The driver then delivers the product to your station.

Since you live in Ohio and that's one of my markets, I can tell you that the crude probably came from the Gulf of Mexico. If you're in the south, near Cincy, it's likely your fuel was refined in Kentucky or Louisiana, barged up the Mississippi and Ohio rivers, then unloaded at the terminal. From Dayton north through Columbus, Cleveland and Toledo, your gas was probably refined in Wood River, Illinois and transported on the East Line pipeline to your local terminal. It really doesn't matter what brand of fuel you buy, they pretty much all follow the same routes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being able to get our product to Asia and Europe - while the US does.....while selling at a discount to our only customer is virtually a standstill, wouldn't you say? How long is your estimate for when we might be able to effectively move our product to other markets?

so you still won't admit your hyperbole in stating the industry was at a virtual standstill? You make these statements and you provide nothing to substantiate them... just as you're doing here. In the prior exchange I flush out actual data/stats (that you somehow can't seem to bother with) and confirm your hyperbole. Here's a thought: I'm sitting on examples of actual export data outside the U.S. and thinking... why can't MLW member Simple provide this? It may not be the export numbers you're clamoring for... but it's not "standstill", notwithstanding the over-supply and low price of oil impact on production.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so you still won't admit your hyperbole in stating the industry was at a virtual standstill? You make these statements and you provide nothing to substantiate them... just as you're doing here. In the prior exchange I flush out actual data/stats (that you somehow can't seem to bother with) and confirm your hyperbole. Here's a thought: I'm sitting on examples of actual export data outside the U.S. and thinking... why can't MLW member Simple provide this? It may not be the export numbers you're clamoring for... but it's not "standstill", notwithstanding the over-supply and low price of oil impact on production.

.

What would you prefer - "slowed to a crawl"? OK then.......slowed to a crawl. I find it fascinating that in light of oil projects being cancelled or suspended, investment fleeing and 60,000 people being thrown out of work - that somehow - in the face of all that.....you call it hyperbole and imply that there is some vitality to the industry? Waldo, it's one thing to be a somewhat amusing, verbose contrarian, it's quite another to be completely blind to reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would you prefer - "slowed to a crawl"? OK then.......slowed to a crawl. I find it fascinating that in light of oil projects being cancelled or suspended, investment fleeing and 60,000 people being thrown out of work - that somehow - in the face of all that.....you call it hyperbole and imply that there is some vitality to the industry? Waldo, it's one thing to be a somewhat amusing, verbose contrarian, it's quite another to be completely blind to reality.

MLW member Simple, your hyperbole is not the measure of reality! And now the strawmanStruts! I trust going forward you might actually try to substantiate your statements, yes?

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When gold prices drop and the cost of extraction becomes greater than world price then gold mines close. When copper prices drop and the cost of extraction becomes greater than world price then copper mines close.

At what price per barrel of oil on the world market does the tar sands operation become a loss?

It becomes a bad place to do business in a bad country to do business when that country permits the product to be extracted, but will not permit it to be transported. It is decidedly third world. It is less the price of the barrel, it is the whole package we offer, or rather the wholly unpalatable reeking pile we offer with a smile and a better haircut these days. Once the people who fill the pipeline with what they own decide it is not working for them, this little shitstorm will become a world of turd that will spread to all economic sectors that like investment.

This is the ideal time to build infrastructure, labour is available and money is cheap. When oil tuns around a bit, we will be ready. And what is the cost to taxpayers? Nothing, these projects have corporate backers. Oh sorry. we are talking about Canada, the place where governments fail to act int their own interests..... Let's move on to other places with jobs and cash. Why would anybody bother here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worse than that....Canada's evil, dirty "tarsands" industry is going to be hit by the divestment movement too.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/what-the-divestment-movement-could-mean-for-alberta-and-canada/article23025983/

old news... been discussed to varying extents through an assortment of prior GW/AGW/CC related MLW threads. A better input would have been to bring forward representations of just how far companies, institutions, etc., (and fund manager's) have actually embraced the initiative/action. Lot's of info/data out there.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you've changed your tune on just about everything, you seem to know absolutely nothing about how a refinery works. Petroleum Gas, regular gasoline, Naptha, Kerosene, Diesel, Lubricating Oil, Fuel Oil and a myriad of residual products are produced at refineries - and they all have to be delivered to the markets that they service - by pipeline, rail, truck or water. Here's a primer - let me know your thoughts on refineries after you read it:

I tend to agree with Jaycee on this subject. Alberta should be doing at the very least adding value by shipping only synthetic crude, NOT dilbit. AND, Alberta really needs to add even more value wherever they can. While it has a very strong manufacturing sector, it is almost totally aimed at the petroleum industry, so suffers when resources are hit. It should have long ago focused on diversifying its manufacturing base.

Of course, the point you make, that everything SHOULD be going out of refineries via pipeline, is lost on most people. They don't seem to realize that we as a consuming continent are going to continue to use fossil fuels for a very, very long time, and those crude feedstocks and refined products will need to be delivered one way or another. Other than vacuum distillates and residuals, they need to go into a pipeline, as they will otherwise be on road or rail at MUCH, MUCH higher risk to the public and damage to the environment. This totally idiotic opposition to pipelines on a strictly emotional and political basis risks damaging our competitiveness and reputation irreparably.

Edited by cannuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you asked questions related to dilbit - you received responses and proceed to strawman "dilbit as the problem". And you draw an immediate equivalency between dilbit and jet-fuel... choosing to, apparently, completely ignore all the scientific based aspects of sediment impacting upon dilbit and what that means to leaks/discharges affecting freshwater/ocean ecosystems. Unless you're drawing an equivalency between oil sheen on surface water and dilbit sitting on a river/ocean bottom. Now, dilbit is 'a' problem/concern to certain people/agencies/organizations/etc..; one you can choose to narrowly elevate to 'the' problem/concern.

since you ignored my question asking you about your statements on pipelines and raw bitumen... does this mean you confirm my statement that, in effect, as I'm aware, any pipeline coating tech to support raw bitumen pipeline passage is still within a 'lab concept' and hasn't been scaled to a real-world deployment. Is that what you're saying with your ignoring of that question?

.

The reason i ignore your response is i do not follow where you are getting your information from. Enbridge pipelines on the prairies does run a mixture to aid in the transport of heavy crude but it is not referred to as dilbit, it is known as condensate. And condensate is not known to sink to the bottom of a river or lake as it is quite the opposite so we are talking about completely different things apparently.

Also the "lab only" pipeline coating you speak of has been in use by Enbridge for two years already that i know of. But if you insist on a response to your statement then there it is. It is called Drag Reducing Agent described as a white tacky fluid and at the sites i was at this week the flows are about 60 lbs an hour when pipeline flow is around 2400 cubic meters per hour. It is used on the condensate line and the heavy crude line. So again, we must be talking different types of "pipelines" as it seems what you say is not possible is actually in use as a common item.

What you claim as dilbit may be true but my beleif is that Energy East would use similar methods that Enbridge would use. However condensate flows with the heavy crude to destination and is returned back to its originating location via a seperate pipeline. If Energy East is a single pipeline then this would imply a different method of operation not requiring condensate perhaps simply a lighter crude that does already flow through Enbridge pipes without addition of mixtures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worse than that....Canada's evil, dirty "tarsands" industry is going to be hit by the divestment movement too.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/what-the-divestment-movement-could-mean-for-alberta-and-canada/article23025983/

I'm all for divestment, let the clueless artificially lower the cost of those companies for me.

But really divestment has no impact. Furthermore, it's pointless. All the other stuff they will move those investments into, will itself be invested in oil or tied to oil in some way. The economy is interconnected, not separate pieces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cannuk hits on the most likely solution of Energy East and that is to ship synthetic crude and would be done without a return line for condensate.

I understand now Waldos position on diluted bitumen. The concern apparently that bitumen (not dilbit) will sink. Dilbit does not sink, it is when the dilutent seperates from bitumen that the bitumen sinks. I have always been instructed to be wary of the condensate around refineries and pipeline sites and so thought Waldo was focusing on the dilutent as a cause of concern when shipping heavy crude. Guess not, the concern is bitumen apparently. So if Alberta shipped synthetic crude not requiring condensate (that being my concern) and also not shipping bitumen (the concerns of others) then our government should be further along with its social license (propaganda).

Interesting that if we mix bitumen with sand and gravel and dump it on the ground then this is something we should demand our government to spend billions of dollars on. And covering thousands of acres with raised clay bases, stripped right of ways, sand and gravel dug from the earth destroying more acres upon acres, building right through wet land areas, and topping with heavy crude with an impact that last centuries is all very good things. Building a pipeline that can be farmed over the next year is bad. Yes, Canada does seem to be a sucker nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cannuk hits on the most likely solution of Energy East and that is to ship synthetic crude and would be done without a return line for condensate.

I understand now Waldos position on diluted bitumen. The concern apparently that bitumen (not dilbit) will sink. Dilbit does not sink, it is when the dilutent seperates from bitumen that the bitumen sinks. I have always been instructed to be wary of the condensate around refineries and pipeline sites and so thought Waldo was focusing on the dilutent as a cause of concern when shipping heavy crude. Guess not, the concern is bitumen apparently. So if Alberta shipped synthetic crude not requiring condensate (that being my concern) and also not shipping bitumen (the concerns of others) then our government should be further along with its social license (propaganda).

Interesting that if we mix bitumen with sand and gravel and dump it on the ground then this is something we should demand our government to spend billions of dollars on. And covering thousands of acres with raised clay bases, stripped right of ways, sand and gravel dug from the earth destroying more acres upon acres, building right through wet land areas, and topping with heavy crude with an impact that last centuries is all very good things. Building a pipeline that can be farmed over the next year is bad. Yes, Canada does seem to be a sucker nation.

So I get from all that that you think we don't need roads because they are as bad as oil spills in, say, a river.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason i ignore your response is i do not follow where you are getting your information from. Enbridge pipelines on the prairies does run a mixture to aid in the transport of heavy crude but it is not referred to as dilbit, it is known as condensate. And condensate is not known to sink to the bottom of a river or lake as it is quite the opposite so we are talking about completely different things apparently.

Also the "lab only" pipeline coating you speak of has been in use by Enbridge for two years already that i know of. But if you insist on a response to your statement then there it is. It is called Drag Reducing Agent described as a white tacky fluid and at the sites i was at this week the flows are about 60 lbs an hour when pipeline flow is around 2400 cubic meters per hour. It is used on the condensate line and the heavy crude line. So again, we must be talking different types of "pipelines" as it seems what you say is not possible is actually in use as a common item.

What you claim as dilbit may be true but my beleif is that Energy East would use similar methods that Enbridge would use. However condensate flows with the heavy crude to destination and is returned back to its originating location via a seperate pipeline. If Energy East is a single pipeline then this would imply a different method of operation not requiring condensate perhaps simply a lighter crude that does already flow through Enbridge pipes without addition of mixtures.

my understanding: as pertains to your use of "heavy crude"... the determiner is just what viscosity are you speaking to. Yes, DRA's have had a long-standing use to increase pipeline throughput for varying oil grades; however, it is my understanding this has not yet been deployed to a commercial scale in regards to raw bitumen (more dense, with the highest viscosity as compared to 'conventional' heavy crude oil)... that this is being pursued but, as I'm aware, remains under research laboratory conditions. As I'm aware, today, raw bitumen must be liquefied (using condensates) to allow efficient pipeline transfer - termed 'dilbit'... diluted bitumen.

as for concerns over dilbit... the recent Enbridge Michigan Kalamazoo River pipeline spill: the condensate within the dilbit that spilled soon evaporated, and the heavy bitumen gradually sank to the riverbed. Additionally, sediment levels within water and the degree of 'water churn' will also impact on the settling of dilbit to a river/ocean floor.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am actually ok with building roads, and through wet lands too. While others freak out about dredging a river to clean up an oil spill i look at the millions of tons of earth moved yearly to build the things we admire while changing the landscape permanently - well for a few centuries until new generations determine we need to restore rivers to their original condition where our major cities presently reside. So yes, i dont like oil spills but i accept that the next generation will never know the Kalamazoo river was restored but it will definitely know where other landscape has been "developed". Both of these being the result of progress but one having much longer environmental implications.

Yeah Waldo, i agree that bitumen is not at a state where it can be shipped without condensate and that is my point. Synthetic crude can be. Dont ask me why we dont do things that way already, i have no knowledge on that aspect. Condensate is what concerns me. But i have not seen information on whether Energy East would carry diluted bitumen or synthetic or other lighter crude. The propaganda to date is simply all oil is bad so no need to talk such details.

But i look it and say we take bitumen out of the sand (clean up), send down a pipeline, take it out of pipeline, mix it with sand and gravel and dump it on the ground. Water washes over it, sometimes daily, and then into fresh water ways. A spill occurs and that same bitumen mixes with sand and gravel where it is under water 24/7 and the world has ended. We dig, modify, reshape our environment daily including fresh water rivers, lakes and wetlands. We have the capability to restore a spill so that future generations will never recognize it. They will probably drive a highway right to the spill site.

I keep things in perspective. The pipeline controller that day for the Kalamazoo spill was a complete moron. But while others fly into a rage about the clean up i pictures how many acres elsewhere were permanently destroyed that day in the name of progress to reshape our environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the OP raises a valid issue. The key word in his theory however is "responsibly" Perhaps Canada should go with the new dual-wall pipe that provides an extra layer of safety against spills and install safety valves every mile so in case of any spillage, the damage can be very limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont see an issue with using double wall pipe in areas deemed highly sensitive. My position is that a pipe break on the prairies means maybe 5 to 10 acres of soil being excavated, about the same area dug up and removed to supply the sand and gravel needed for a highway of 10 miles or so. So single wall pipe is still ok for most areas. The problem with water is oil spreads out more. Still dont consider it an irreversible ecological disaster to clean up an oil spill, i expect that to clean up abandoned areas of cities to restore their natural state is going to prove much more expensive than a pipeline break. But so much easier to attack oil and keep people distracted from realities.

Technology for checking pipe integrity is always improving also and includes more than just x-ray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it these anti-oil, anti-pipeline kneejerk reactionaries think they will accomplish????

Canada is not going to stop using gasoline and diesel to get 99% of its population to work and goods to market. Not for the foreseeable future.

Canadians are not soon going to stop buying almost everything they use made from plastics and everything they eat farmed with oil, packaged with plastic and shipped with oil.

So, we will continue to use petroleum products. And they will continue to be shipped to us. Our choice is do we do it safely in pipelines or at much, much higher risk to public safety by rail and road? And, if our refineries aren't being fed by our oilfields, are we prepared to let yet another bunch of billion$$ per week bleed out across our borders to pay someone else to make those products that WILL be shipped here to meet our demands?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why just double walled? Why not triple or quadruple?

Or maybe 1 really really thick pipe is better than 1 thin pipe inside another thin pipe.

Ultimately, it would make sense to do a cost benefit analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...