Federal Government Approves Kinder Morgan and Line 3

[agentaqua]

Trudeau Gov’t Approves Two Major Pipeline Projects, Vows Tanker Ban
On Kinder Morgan, PM says: ‘If I thought this project was unsafe for the B.C. coast, I would reject it.’

By Andrew MacLeod Yesterday | TheTyee.ca
http://thetyee.ca/News/2016/11/29/Kinder-Morgan-Approved/

 

[agentaqua]

Opinion
Trudeau Just Sacrificed BC for Big Oil
First Nations are owed so much more, and he will soon find that out.

By Judith Sayers Yesterday | TheTyee.ca
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/11/29/Trudeau-Sacrificed-BC/

 

[agentaqua]

Opinion
Climate Change, Not Spills, the Real Kinder Morgan Disaster
Trudeau’s Orwellian pipeline approval ignores looming threat to our grandchildren.
By Crawford Kilian Today | TheTyee.ca
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/11/30/Climate-Change-Kinder-Morgan-Disaster/

 

[california]

I really don't understand.

Does anyone realize Canada is a nation that relies on export of raw commodities?!

Just what do you guys want? Do you think your way of life is a God given right? Don't you realize that south of the border, they have elected someone that's PRO BUSINESS?! That means we better get our **** together up here and be competitive because we no longer have the safety blanket of a like minded anti growth admin in the US.

As much as some of you hate to admit it, you need to sell something to make money. If we don't provide that oil then the US certainly will.

As far as the FN protesting, of course, they want the bargaining chip to get paid more. As far as local politicians protesting, of course, they know people here will vote with their hearts, not their heads.

All you people worrying about spills before they happen need to start thinking about how you would replace the money/jobs these things provide for our country. That money and jobs will provide you with your current way of life if we are lucky.

Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it. Then maybe you will see how the rest of the world lives.

It is true that Canada needs to sell its commodities like oil, and the only way to get oil to market is via pipelines. The Northern Gateway is probably just too risky environmentally, and politically toxic. It becomes redundant with the likelihood of Keystone being approved to get Alberta oil South. Both are not needed and that's why Trudeau nixed it. Kinder Morgan is an existing pipeline, and the tanker risks are minimal compared to the North Coast, so it was more a pragmatic decision to move more oil quickly as Keystone is a big project that is many years away.

Just as an aside, that "no growth administration" has the US economy running at a GDP increase of 2.9% in the third quarter, and is closing in on full employment. Trump wants to tear up trade agreements and start trade wars. Hes only pro-business in that he wants to gut the regulations that were put in place to curb the activities that lead to the great recession, and almost a depression.

 

[sly_karma]

Likening the oil and lumber industries isn't a valid comparison, because there is only limited opportunity to export finished petro products. The great majority of ocean-transferred oil is in crude form; very little finished gasoline or diesel moves by ocean tanker. Refineries are located relatively close to the market for their finished product, and they are usually constructed with adaptations for the raw product they are to receive. This is true for the diluted bitumen that comes out of the Alberta oil sands - longterm contracts have to be put in place so that adjustments to receiving refineries can be made. Although it would be nice to see more well-paid oil refinery jobs here in Canada, the reality is that we already have excess refining capacity. Any export of finished products out of Canada would by via pipeline to US markets... but they too have excess refining capacity and would prefer to keep the refining jobs and profits there.

There are three key economic problems for the Canadian energy industry:

1. Alberta exporters are receiving lower prices for dilbit than for light sweet crude. Not much can be done, that is what the resource produces. And upgrade processing to light crude is uneconomical.
2. Central Canada refiners must purchase Atlantic Basin sweet crude because there is no effective method for transporting dilbit there from Alberta. Offshore production in the Maritimes is insufficient to meet needs, so sweet crude is imported.
3. Alberta producers receive lower prices for their product from US refiners than if they could get them to tidewater and off to Pacific markets where supply is tighter and demand is still expanding.

Kinder Morgan approval does nothing for #1 or #2, but it does address #3. It should be noted that Keystone XL doesn't help with any of the three problems. Other than short-term construction jobs on the Canadian portion of the route, there is virtually nothing in it for Canada. The previous federal government was a vociferous proponent of Keystone XL, but it's hard to see it being more than just empty calories.

Better again would be the completion of the Energy East project, which proposes to repurpose an existing natural gas pipeline to move oil to refiners in central Canada as well as an export terminal in New Brunswick. Its carrying capacity of a million barrels a day is roughly equal to the refining capacity of central Canada. That would clearly make big improvements to problems #2 and #3.

 

[Eastmon]

Me old mate California. I thought something was missing here!

Your first paragraph was well said.

 

[agentaqua]

Thanks Sly Karma! Would an old LNG pipeline (Energy East) even be suitable for dilbit? My understanding is that dilbit is chunky and abrasive - with pressure spikes.

 

[sly_karma]

Kinder Morgan is an existing pipeline, and the tanker risks are minimal compared to the North Coast

Although I agree with much of the body of your post, there are significant risks with tankers for the Kinder Morgan project. First is the tripling of volume - more sailings means more exposure to risk. Second is the high traffic volumes in those southern BC waters. The ports of Seattle/Tacoma and Vancouver combined represent the second largest shipping volume in the entire western seaboard of north america, and it all has to move through JDF and its approach passes. Adding more VLCCs to that already crowded mix isn't to be taken lightly. Thirdly, Burrard Inlet is a very confined space for VLCCs to operate. The Second Narrows has a navigable channel barely 150 m wide and can generate currents of up to 6 kn.

Yes, huge oil tankers have been plying our waters for 60 years already, and no, there have been no serious incidents yet. But just one single major spill would cause untold havoc on our coast. Most of the heavy fractions would sink to the bottom, releasing hydrocarbons into the environment for decades.

 

[sly_karma]

Thanks Sly Karma! Would an old LNG pipeline even be suitable for dilbit? My understanding is that dilbit is chunky and abrasive - with pressure spikes.

I don't pretend to know about technical details, but TransCanada say it can be done and they're willing to back the claim with over $10 billion in investment. The gas pipe portion represents two thirds of the proposed 4500 km project's pipe length.

Not sure how the legal/legislative mechanisms work in the energy sector, but it would be good if the federal government could impose conditions on Energy East approval, the key one being that Canadian oil go to Canadian refiners before any is exported. Sounds good in theory of course, but no doubt it would become mired in complications as refiners demand compensation if world crude prices are lower than Canadian price, and so on.

 

[agentaqua]

My admittedly limited understanding of pipelines - is that LNG is quite a different product than dilbit. LNG - clean and high pressure. Dilbit - very much not clean, abrasive - with chunky bits that cause pressure spikes. If the early detection of leaks depends upon sensors noticing changes in pressure - dilbit is a tough one - because by the time the sensors record a pressure drop low and long enough to alert a response that there is a leak - you've emptied a fair bit of the pipe between shut-off valves already. The abrasive factor would not be good, neither. I guess Trans Canada must have that all figured-out, eh? Unless it is a venture capital straw dog that avoids the sticky parts. Hopefully, the investors know the differences...

 

[terrin]

Actually the lawyers and bankers negotiating trade deals and presiding over back room trade disputes are very much NOT representatives, Eastmon. That's the real issue. They are not accountable to an electorate or anyone - and nobody voted in a leader on the basis that they were going to abrogate our governance systems and oversight in a trade deal - but they did anyways without asking the electorate if they wanted their governance severely handicapped. In another time - they might be classed as traitors.

I believe the main reason Trump got so many votes in the states because he was able to tap into that frustration and rage and sense of betrayal felt by those affected workers - who were obviously lied to about the benefits of these trade deals.

The Chinese aren't just "better" - they are better at being corrupt with our leadership behind closed doors - an inexcusable and likely illegal situation. It's not ok and not acceptable. Governance and business decisions need to be separated and kept apart. It's called a "conflict of interest" - maybe even corruption.

Well said I 100% agree with this and I think a lot of people are starting to see it as well. It's not as complicated as they would have you believe.

 

[Ringo]

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-...great-to-assess-risk-of-ocean-spill-sfu-study

Bitumen knowledge gaps too great to assess risk of ocean spill: SFU study

 

[terrin]

Eastmon
There are two distinct but tightly related economic terms: Value Added Product and Gross Domestic Productivity (GDP). Those economies that are capable of acquiring relatively cheap resources and turn them into processed/manufactured products generate higher GDP. GDP is measured per capita (head/person) and is a standard indicator of life quality and economic prosperity. Countries like Japan, South Korea and Sweden are major importers of natural resources but have the highest GDP and quality of life in the world. Economies that rely on extracting and selling "raw" resources, are doomed to live in sh*%t and will pretty much leave nothing for their next generation to chew on. It's that plain basic and black & white.

Yes I think a lot of countries are taking action on shipping out "raw resources". For example
Logging and Export Bans
Many countries have enacted log export ban policies to protect forests or to bolster their domestic timber industry. Below is a non-exhaustive list of export bans, the product scope that the export ban covers, the current status of the ban, when the information was last reviewed and updated, and the source of the information.

Help us keep this information up-to-date: If you have new information on logging and export bans, please contact us at forestlegality[at]wri.org and provide sources. We will review your input and update this page accordingly.



COUNTRY PRODUCT SCOPE CURRENT STATUS LAST UPDATED SOURCE
AFRICA
Cameroon Log export ban on more than 20 species of raw logs excluding Ayous. 1999 - Present May 2016 Décret no. 99/781 PM du 13 Octobre 1999. Republic of Cameroon.
Cote d'Ivoire A ban on the export of logs, including teak. 1999 - Present May 2016 Maldonado and Louppe. 2000.
Gabon Export ban on logs, boules and through cut logs. 2010 - Present May 2016 Hance. 2010.
Ghana The log export ban was introduced for high value species and extended to all species since 1994. 1979 - Present May 2016 VERIFOR. 2006.
Madagascar
Mozambique An export ban on raw logs. 2007 - Present May 2016 Hubert. 2014.
Nigeria Log export ban. 1976 - Present May 2016 FAO. 2001.
AMERICAS
Belize All raw rosewood exports in 1992,but lifted the ban in 1996. 1992-1996;2012 - Present May 2016 Statutory Instrument No. 87 of 1992.
Brazil Log export ban; moratorium on mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla, CITES Appendix II) exports. Certain wood exports (e.g., imbuia, virola) are subject to specific rules and require prior authorization from the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Natural Resources (Ibama). but plantation logs are allowed for export. 1969 - Present May 2016 TED Case Studies, "Brazil deforestation and logging". n.d.
Bolivia Export of unprocessed forestry products is subject to restrictions and highly regulated (forest certification mainly). 1996 - Present May 2016 WWF. 2015.
Canada Restrictions on log exports from British Columbia. There are a variety of federal and provincial regulations regarding log exports. 1906 - Present May 2016 Shinn. 1993.
Colombia Restrictions on log exports from natural forests.
Costa Rica Log export ban, and export ban on roughly squared wood from specific species. Undetermined (First enacted in 1986) May 2016 Kishor, Mani & Constantino. 2001.
Ecuador
Guatemala Exports of logs of more than 11 cm in diameter are banned,
Honduras Export ban on hardwood and sawnwood. Undetermined (First enacted in 1998) May 2016 Tacconi, L. Illegal logging: law enforcement, livelihoods and the timber trade. Earthscan, 2012.
Nicaragua Precious hardwoods export ban (mahogany, royal cedar and pochote). Mahogany exports are allowed only in the form of sawn wood, plywood or veneered wood. Sawn wood exports require a license.
Panama Export ban of logs,
Peru Log export ban. Export of forest products “in their natural state” is prohibited except when they originate from nurseries, forest plantations, and if they do not require processing for final consumption. 1972 - Present May 2016 TRAFFIC. n.d.
United States Ban on exports of unprocessed roundwood harvested from federal lands in Alaska; Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief Act (1990): 100% export ban on logs from Federal lands west of the 100th meridian, except timber surplus to needs, and a ban in 1995 on log exports from State and other public lands (excluding Indian land) west of the 100th meridian. 1926 - Present May 2016 Hines.1987; The Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief Act. 1990.
EUROPE
Albania
Ban of logging in all forests and the export of timber.

2016 - Present May 2016 The Balkan Investigative Reporting Network. 2015.
Ukraine 10-year ban on the exportation outside the customs territory of Ukraine of untreated wood from all tree species (except pine) 2015 - Present November 2016 Fordaq. 2015.
ASIA PACIFIC
Cambodia Complete ban on exports of logs and rough timber since 1996,
Fiji Log export ban in place since 1997. Certain wood and wood products are prohibited for export unless the specified requirements are met. 1997 - Present August 2016 Customs Act No. 11 of 1986 (Revised 2010) - Section 64:
Indonesia Log export ban first issued in 1985 until 1992. Raw log export ban re-activated in 2001, expanded to sawnwood in 2004. First enacted in 1985; Reactive 2001 - Present August 2016
Laos A total logging ban in natural forest areas, a harvesting ban for protected species
Malaysia In 1972, a ban was imposed on the export of ten species,

New Zealand Export ban on indigenous timber (native species from natural forests) logs and woodchips, with certain exceptions outlined in the 1949 Forestry Act and its 1993 and 2004 Amendments. 1993 - Present August 2016 New Zealand Forests Act 1949. as amended.
Papua New Guinea
Philippines Log export ban in place since 1986, expanded to include sawnwood in 1989. SInce 1992, a national logging ban on timber extraction in old growth forests and in critical areas such as those on steep slopes (50%+), above 1000m elevation, stream banks (20m sides), and wilderness areas primarily for conservation of biodiversity and gene pools.
Sri Lanka Logging ban in all natural forests. 1990 - Present August 2016 Forest Act No. 65. 2009; FAO. 2002.
Thailand Ban on timber harvesting and raw log exports from natural forests. 1989 - Present August 2016 USITC. 2010; TED Case Studies, “Thailand Log Ban” n.d.
Vietnam Log export ban; export ban on sawn timber from natural forests. 1992 - Present August 2016 USITC. 2010; FAO. 2001.

 

[triplenickel]

My admittedly limited understanding of pipelines - is that LNG is quite a different product than dilbit. LNG - clean and high pressure. Dilbit - very much not clean, abrasive - with chunky bits that cause pressure spikes. If the early detection of leaks depends upon sensors noticing changes in pressure - dilbit is a tough one - because by the time the sensors record a pressure drop low and long enough to alert a response - you've emptied a fair bit of the pipe between shut-off valves already. The abrasive factor would not be good, neither. I guess Trans Canada must have that all figured-out, eh? Unless it is a venture capital straw dog that avoids the sticky parts. Hopefully, the investors know the differences...

It's an NG line not an LNG line, and the pressure rating for any given pipeline is a function of the pipe not what's in it. So the lines will have the same MOP for either product. The abrasives of concern are taken out upstream and won't be in the lines in question that would be suicide and we'd see tons more leaks if that were the case. Also from a common sense standpoint why would any producer open themselves up to all the liabilities of putting abrasive product into lines then into refining facilities contaminating them, washing out valves, ruining pumps, measurement instruments, washing out elbows etc? There's also regular NDT inspections in facilities that are an accurate barometer of downstream wear. Dilbit is the same viscosity as any other conventional crude that's where the dil in dilbit comes from, it's diluted to attain an appropriate viscosity so leak detection is no different than conventional crude. Flow is also monitored not just pressure, so if x volume is leaving a meter station and doesn't arrive at the next procedures are put in play to find out why.

For some perspective tanker traffic will increase dramatically, but overall traffic will increase single digit percentages. No the other ships aren't tankers but they hold massive amounts of heavy bunker oil, most of the big boys are burning around 300 tonnes per day, so do the math on how many thousands of tons are already carried through Vancouver harbors everyday in single hulled walmart stock haulers. When I fly in or out between the ones in past Lions Gate sitting at docks and others anchored out front there's always 2-3 dozen. Port Metro Vancouver alone had 3200 (drama free) vessel arrivals in 2015 alone and they all have those giant fuel tanks, forget about cruise ships and all the others with literally millions of gallons on board. Where's the uproar or even trickle of concern? Don't bother with "well it's not dilbit" you know damn well even if it was a refined product the same people would be waving the same signs. Not gonna get into a long dick contest, just a bit of info and perspective.

Edit: there's also required smart pigging on these lines, many won't know what that is so I dug up a couple minute clip if interested.

 

[agentaqua]

It's an NG line not an LNG line, and the pressure rating for any given pipeline is a function of the pipe not what's in it. So the lines will have the same MOP for either product. The abrasives of concern are taken out upstream and won't be in the lines in question that would be suicide and we'd see tons more leaks if that were the case. Also from a common sense standpoint why would any producer open themselves up to all the liabilities of putting abrasive product into lines then into refining facilities contaminating them, washing out valves, ruining pumps, measurement instruments, washing out elbows etc? There's also regular NDT inspections in facilities that are an accurate barometer of downstream wear. Dilbit is the same viscosity as any other conventional crude that's where the dil in dilbit comes from, it's diluted to attain an appropriate viscosity so leak detection is no different than conventional crude. Flow is also monitored not just pressure, so if x volume is leaving a meter station and doesn't arrive at the next procedures are put in play to find out why.

For some perspective tanker traffic will increase dramatically, but overall traffic will increase single digit percentages. No the other ships aren't tankers but they hold massive amounts of heavy bunker oil, most of the big boys are burning around 300 tonnes per day, so do the math on how many thousands of tons are already carried through Vancouver harbors everyday in single hulled walmart stock haulers. When I fly in or out between the ones in past Lions Gate sitting at docks and others anchored out front there's always 2-3 dozen. Port Metro Vancouver alone had 3200 (drama free) vessel arrivals in 2015 alone and they all have those giant fuel tanks, forget about cruise ships and all the others with literally millions of gallons on board. Where's the uproar or even trickle of concern? Don't bother with "well it's not dilbit" you know damn well even if it was a refined product the same people would be waving the same signs. Not gonna get into a long dick contest, just a bit of info and perspective.

Thanks 3x5. Always appreciate experienced info!

 

[Eastmon]

That's the thing AA. You immediately run your mouth without knowing ANYTHING about it. Guys a world ahead of you with intelligence in regards to these things know the risks and take steps to lower them as much as possible.
It's always a risk/reward ratio.

 

[SpringVelocity]

The sail of bitumen to China sucks. As I said before I was never against all of this, but I am against China expanding more. I was against Northern gateway, and that was a stupid place to consider pipeline and tanker expansion. What worries me the most in this case is a few things:

1. First I am fully opposed to China buying up oil sands quietly these last few years. That was done on purpose, and if you look closely they hired some environmentalists to make noise so they could quietly buy up companies without drawing attention. It was part of the plan to acquire energy because of the amount of manufacturing lines going online everyday across the country. The pipeline I believe went in because China has a lot influence now in the oil sands, and is pushing its interests. It also most likely has loaned money to Canada etc. just like in the US. That buys political influence.

2. I also think we should refine here, and fully support oil sands if we sell our gas here. Look I would like to see renewable technologies, but it isn't there yet. This new pipeline will generate jobs in beginning but it will actually cut jobs in long term once its built. Just like the raw log scenario with mills. Its actually bad for Alberta.

3. There is really not containment for bitumen if it spills, and that is a big red flag. That really worries me.

4. The tanker traffic is a result of the way we consume. The majority of public no longer buy local, and many buy offshore products because of cost. Why do you think China needs the energy? Its to support our lifestyle?

5. China is an extremely polluted country with horrible human rights track record. Personally it makes me ill we send stuff there, and I have been there many times. Take a trip at a few manufacturing lines and you will see what I mean. I really recommend people go there and see it for yourself.

6. We have a terrible Environment Minister in BC. Mary Polak is about the worst MP that has sat in the house with respect to protecting environment. It looks like they will be reelected, and her department will oversee the expansion. MOE has had a very poor track record in last few years. Between her and Clark I would say we are in for a rough ride ahead.


If people don't want pipelines you have to look at entire picture. The pipelines are only there because the Costco, Walmarts etc have flooded cheap products made faster and cheaper. We effectively took all our jobs and gave them to China, and now we are going to feed that growth with energy , so again we can get more cheaper and faster. The cost of environment is all of our faults.

In the US I am not a fan of Trump but the bringing manufacturing back to North America is good idea. That would be the first step if want to control pipeline and tanker expansion. Also maybe we should stick with our phone for maybe more than a month before getting a new iphone? Just another perspective to think about.

 

[triplenickel]

The sail of bitumen to China sucks. As I said before I was never against all of this, but I am against China expanding more. I was against Northern gateway, and that was a stupid place to consider pipeline and tanker expansion. What worries me the most in this case is a few things:

1. First I am fully opposed to China buying up oil sands quietly these last few years. That was done on purpose, and if you look closely they hired some environmentalists to make noise so they could quietly buy up companies without drawing attention. It was part of the plan to acquire energy because of the amount of manufacturing lines going online everyday across the country. The pipeline I believe went in because China has a lot influence now in the oil sands, and is pushing its interests. It also most likely has loaned money to Canada etc. just like in the US. That buys political influence.

2. I also think we should refine here, and fully support oil sands if we sell out gas here. Look I would like to see renewable technologies, but it isn't there yet. This new pipeline will generate jobs in beginning but it will actually cut jobs in long term once its built. Just like the raw log scenario with mills. Its actually bad for Alberta.

3. There is really not containment for bitumen if it spills, and that is a big red flag. That really worries me.

4. The tanker traffic is a result of the way we consume. The majority of public no longer buy local, and many buy offshore products because of cost. Why do you think China needs the energy? Its to support our lifestyle?

5. China is an extremely polluted country with horrible human rights track record. Personally it makes me ill we send stuff there, and I have been there many times. Take a trip at a few manufacturing lines and you will see what I mean. I really recommend people go there and see it for yourself.

6. We have a terrible Environment Minister in BC. Mary Polak is about the worst MP that has sat in the house with respect to protecting environment. It looks like they will be reelected, and her department will oversee the expansion. MOE has had a very poor track record in last few years. Between her and Clark I would say we are in for a rough ride ahead.


If people don't want pipelines you have to look at entire picture. The pipelines are only there because the Costco, Walmarts etc have flooded cheap products made faster and cheaper. We effectively took all our jobs and gave them to China, and now we are going to feed that growth with energy , so again we can get more cheaper and faster. The cost of environment is all of our faults.

In the US I am not a fan of Trump but the bringing manufacturing back to North America is good idea. That would be the first step if want to control pipeline and tanker expansion. Also maybe we should stick with our phone for maybe more than a month before getting a new iphone? Just another perspective to think about.

All true, been saying the same things on here for years. #5 is a big one, we like to point to China as being the polluting boogeyman, but the reality is we drive that pollution, everyone of us consumers owns a piece of it.

 

[triplenickel]

Thanks 3x5. Always appreciate experienced info!

I work in natural gas not the oil sands but the technology overlaps in lots of ways. The company I work for has close to 900 wells, all of them have low pressure protection in case of a significant failure. It's also 100% automated and requires no human intervention, we can't choose to ignore an alarm, the valve shuts then we get an alarm.

 

[triplenickel]

That's the thing AA. You immediately run your mouth without knowing ANYTHING about it. Guys a world ahead of you with intelligence in regards to these things know the risks and take steps to lower them as much as possible.
It's always a risk/reward ratio.

You make some interesting points but kinda come across a bit abrasive, gear down big rig you'll get more from this place.