Northern Gateway APPROVED

[Big Green Machine]

Sun News (The Faux Report)—The so-called polar vortex caused hundreds of injuries across the Midwest today, as people who said “so much for global warming” and similar comments were punched in the face.

Authorities in several cites said that residents who had made ignorant comments erroneously citing the brutally cold temperatures as proof that climate change did not exist were reporting a sharp increase in injuries to the face and head regions.

In an emergency room in St. Joe's, Ezra Levant, forty-one, was waiting to be treated for bruising to the facial area after he made a crack about how the below-freezing temperatures meant that climate-change activists were full of shyt.

“I’d just finished saying it and boom, out of nowhere someone punched me in the face,” he said. “This polar vortex is really dangerous.”

Now the real article..

From The New Yorker: The so-called polar vortex caused hundreds of injuries across the Midwest today, as people who said “so much for global warming” and similar comments were punched in the face.

Authorities in several states said that residents who had made ignorant comments erroneously citing the brutally cold temperatures as proof that climate change did not exist were reporting a sharp increase in injuries to the face and head regions.

In an emergency room in St. Paul, Harland Dorrinson, forty-one, was waiting to be treated for bruising to the facial area after he made a crack about how the below-freezing temperatures meant that climate-change activists were full of ****.


Nice try...grasping at straws and editing the left tard New Yorker shows your true colors GLG but that's okay... Just like Suzuki.

Soxy, you are an Internet cut and paste champion, do you have any thoughts of your own to add?

 

[GLG]

Nice try...grasping at straws and editing the left tard New Yorker shows your true colors GLG but that's okay... Just like Suzuki.

That's why I had it in quotes...Duh...
I thought it was funny... I'm sure others did too.
I just added some Canadian flavor.

So what point did I get wrong? You seem to know something the rest of us don't.
Why not share you info with the group?
Or is it you only know how to attack the messenger and not the message.
From my point of view your logic is only this....
I hate Suzuki therefore GW is a hoax.
Weak.....

 

[soxy]

Actually GLG my views on global warming are more along the lines of SerengetiGuide. The globe has been warming and cooling since the beginning of time and nothing we do is going to have an impact one way or another like your buddy Suzukis B.S.
I happen to believe that Harper is best suited to run this country. The alternatives are no option as far as I'm concerned. They are laughable. Having said that there are policies that I disagree with such as open pen fish farming. However I am anti Morton big time. Pro pipe lines, pro tars sands and pro crude tanker traffic. That's it in a nutshell and I'm sorry if it sounded like I was attacking you. I didn't mean it that way. I'm not a user of eloquent words(as you can tell) or a thesaurus like the departed phony, Dave. Hope this clears things up a bit but doubt it.

 

[GLG]

The globe has been warming and cooling since the beginning of time and nothing we do is going to have an impact one way or another

BS... we have an effect on the climate by pumping out GHG (green house gases). We need to slow down and live up to our commitments of a reduction of 17% of the amounts we produced in 2005. The good news is BC is on that path and has proven that it can be done with a revenue neutral carbon tax. Our economy has grown even when the doubters in Ottawa said it could not be done. So you see if we do send the signal to the market it works. The bad news is BC has a pipe-dream with LNG that will destroy our commitments. Funny thing happens when you start talking in the billion dollar numbers all sense of reality goes out the window. You just seem to forget that you have a moral obligation to the future generations. Is your answer .... "kick the can down the road"? How effed up is that.

I happen to believe that Harper is best suited to run this country. The alternatives are no option as far as I'm concerned.

This "leader" has proven himself to be no better then a two bit dictator run buy the tarsands.
I have not seen one policy that put's Canadian people, land, sea or air in front of the oil companies.
He has dismantled or attacked, at every step of the way, all the polices that protect our fish since he came to office. I do think he will get the boot soon, because of his handling of the expense scandal, but we shall see. You may have noticed on your Sun TV that they are ready to throw him under the bus.

Having said that there are policies that I disagree with such as open pen fish farming.

There you go... something we have in common and we agree 100%

However I am anti Morton big time.

Nope... I'm not going to agree with that one ... but that's off topic.

Pro pipe lines, pro tars sands and pro crude tanker traffic.

Back on topic... I am 100% dead set against this... We can't expand the tarsands like our "Dear Leader" wants.
There is too much risk with stranded assets to go that route. Smart money is already walking away as the writing is on the wall. You may not have noticed but it's happening. Mind you there is a sucker born every minute so there will still be some money available. I suspect our "Dear Leader" will try to dish other peoples money to help his friends at the oil companies.

Tankers.... You don't see any risk with that? Tell you what when you take the fire insurance off your house then lets talk. You do know the the risk of fire at you house is only .02%. Why do we have fire insurance on our houses if the risk is that small? It's because we know that if a fire occurs it will ruin our lives. We will lose what we hold dear and we may never get over it. But you seem to think that since it's not in your back yard it a good idea. Must have some skin in the game.....

 

[steel_dreamin]

I would love to know something from all the strongly opposed - let's fast forward five, ten, fifteen years. Here's the scene; Northern Gateway is not approved, Kinder Morgan falls on its face and doesn't happen, New Prosperity is not developed, Fraser Surrey Docks doesn't expand, No new Coal Projects approved (think Compliance Energy, Teck Coal's Line Creek Project, etc.), Site C is SITE NO. In other words, all of the large economic generators of BC are stopped dead in their tracks.

There are some broad assumptions in here but generally speaking I've found that people opposing NG are opposed to most projects "just because".

What are people of BC doing? what does the financial landscape look like?

 

[reelfast]

all you have to do is turn your gaze south to understand what happens. many parts of the US were founded and flourished on resource extraction. the timber interests as well as the fishing industry thought they would never run out of trees or fish. but sooner or later extraction hits the bottom of the barrel. once that happens local economies collapse, folks are permanently out of work and things start to decay rapidly. if Canada continues to base your economy on extraction of natural resources, your country's economy is going to collapse. that is the risk steel_dreamin. the only solution is to turn the corner while you can and start producing products that can be sold on the world market. it also provides an opportunity to attract clean industries to what is currently a pristine environment. many part of the US have been quite successful in adopting this strategy while other areas are still trying to live in the past. of course this takes leadership and vision for what could be. living in the boom moment is, unfortunately, something that too many seem to adopt no matter what country they live in.

 

[Gunsmith]

Definitely can be done, the results are slower showing but the system can work. The state of Michigan is proof that buy locally produced items keeps the money and work closer to home.

all you have to do is turn your gaze south to understand what happens. many parts of the US were founded and flourished on resource extraction. the timber interests as well as the fishing industry thought they would never run out of trees or fish. but sooner or later extraction hits the bottom of the barrel. once that happens local economies collapse, folks are permanently out of work and things start to decay rapidly. if Canada continues to base your economy on extraction of natural resources, your country's economy is going to collapse. that is the risk steel_dreamin. the only solution is to turn the corner while you can and start producing products that can be sold on the world market. it also provides an opportunity to attract clean industries to what is currently a pristine environment. many part of the US have been quite successful in adopting this strategy while other areas are still trying to live in the past. of course this takes leadership and vision for what could be. living in the boom moment is, unfortunately, something that too many seem to adopt no matter what country they live in.

 

[SerengetiGuide]

Actually GLG my views on global warming are more along the lines of SerengetiGuide. The globe has been warming and cooling since the beginning of time and nothing we do is going to have an impact one way or another like your buddy Suzukis B.S.
I happen to believe that Harper is best suited to run this country. The alternatives are no option as far as I'm concerned. They are laughable. Having said that there are policies that I disagree with such as open pen fish farming. However I am anti Morton big time. Pro pipe lines, pro tars sands and pro crude tanker traffic. That's it in a nutshell and I'm sorry if it sounded like I was attacking you. I didn't mean it that way. I'm not a user of eloquent words(as you can tell) or a thesaurus like the departed phony, Dave. Hope this clears things up a bit but doubt it.

I do think man has an impact, impossible for us not to, but I believe that impact is VASTLY overstated. It is a minimal impact at the moment, that could change don't get me wrong, if we went back to the days of clear cutting and no emissions regulations etc, but at our current path I still believe the impact will be minimal. To go along with what soxy did, I'll state my views to clear things up.

Against open net farming, for closed containment on land should it prove to be environmentally sustainable, pro alex morton but I TRULY believe that her approach is very poor, it is constant rhetoric and in order to be taken seriously by those making the decisions she needs to tone that down and take a more practical approach to what can be done, harping over and over the same message for years tends to lead people to tune out, but if she looked for smaller steps instead of a huge leap all at once I feel it could be more successful. ANTI northern gateway 100%, Kinder Morgan I think will go through and from my understanding the passage it takes is fairly safe with very little oil escapement over the current pipelines lifetime. Tanker traffic i'm against, especially out of Kitimat, tough channel to navigate, different if straight away into the open ocean. Was a fan of Harper's first minority, not so much the second, and definitely not the majority, and if all was equal (Van Island north not Con vs NDP), I would vote Liberal in the next election, despite Trudeau's foot in mouth disease, but that tells me he is not on a script, and I respect that more than robot's spewing out the same ol' garbage non stop.

I would love to know something from all the strongly opposed - let's fast forward five, ten, fifteen years. Here's the scene; Northern Gateway is not approved, Kinder Morgan falls on its face and doesn't happen, New Prosperity is not developed, Fraser Surrey Docks doesn't expand, No new Coal Projects approved (think Compliance Energy, Teck Coal's Line Creek Project, etc.), Site C is SITE NO. In other words, all of the large economic generators of BC are stopped dead in their tracks.

There are some broad assumptions in here but generally speaking I've found that people opposing NG are opposed to most projects "just because".

What are people of BC doing? what does the financial landscape look like?

I don't think that's true, Sun news I enjoy about idle no more and things like that, but they always say it is only environmentalists and natives against NG, which is so far from the truth in BC, a previous Conservative voter like me is against it, many avg BC'ers are against it, and it's not just because, its because our coast is what is so unique about our area, and what really makes me love BC and identify as a British Columbian.

 

[Englishman]

An all time CLASSIC

Original GLG post. Science and fact based, logical, 3 part rational argument.

Attacking the messenger is a sign of a weak argument.
It's the message that is important.
So here we have it.... is GW true or false.
Three questions to ask to cut through the BS.

1. Does CO2 trap heat?
2. Is the concentration of CO2 rising?
3. Are we responsible for that rise?

As you may have guessed, the answer to all three arguments is “yes”.

First: We have known that CO2 has trapped heat for over 150 years. We know because John Tyndall stuck some CO2 in a box with a thermometer in it, shone some light through it, and found that the temp was higher when there was more CO2. This experiment has been used in school for years to teach children science.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall/

Second: Keeling Curve. 52 years of direct measurements of CO2

Third: Turns out, we’ve emitted twice as much CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels as is necessary to account for the rise in CO2. The other half has been absorbed by our friend the ocean, and is causing ocean acidification. The data go back to 1751, and come from fuel production data.

In summary, CO2 traps heat, the concentration of CO2 is rising, and humans have dumped twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere as is necessary to account for that rise. We have a gun, the gun is smoking, and we pulled the trigger.


The rest is BS to hide the truth and to use a phrase from Harper.
Look we have Pandas.... or Look I'm dumping the penny.
Anyone that attacks the messenger is falling for the Panda/Penny line.

Disclosure Copy/paste from around the web to save time and why reinvent the wheel.

Response.
Derides the very simple science and then because his level of comprehension is so low, ignores the rest of the evidence in the post.
Actually accuses GLG and Suzuki (and by extension the rest of the scientific community) of basing their entire argument for global warming on the simple lab experiment that he cannot even understand the implications of. Unbelievable!

Then degenerates into attacking the poster and questioning his ability and motivations. Pitiful!

LOL...do you know how stupid this sounds?" We know because John Tyndall stuck some CO2 in a box with a thermometer in it, shone some light through it, and found that the temp was higher when there was more CO2. This experiment has been used in school for years to tech children science."
So this is crap that you base global warming on?
Let alone man made global warming. If that's what you call proof, a childrens experiment you are sadly out of touch, just like Suzuki.
Just wondering about you and a few others that seem to only post in this section and all the political crap, do you actually fish?? Do you have any actual fishing posts pertinent to this forum? Why don't you just go to a political forum and spew your anti government rhetorical analysis.

The above post and response is an absolute all time classic. It demonstrates the huge gulf between the science and the level of intellect and comprehension of climate change deniers.

The denier cannot even understand a simple three step argument that summarises the science of global warming. The denier cannot comprehend that the original post was a simplification for his benefit and that there is thousands of pieces of published data out there by thousands of scientists which all support the fact of climate change. He seriously tries to imply GLG’s whole argument is based on step 1!!

This whole thing, post and response is worthy of a becoming a classic wall poster. It demonstrate so clearly the huge intellectual and comprehension gulf between climate change scientists and the deniers. It is a hopeless cause to try and change the deniers ignorance based mindset, just as it is to convince fundamentalists of the truth of evolution, or 17[SUP]th[/SUP] century alchemists of particle physics.

At one level the original post and response taken together is very funny. But at another level it shows the futility of having a rational discussion with these people, and is therefore, shocking, frightening , very sad and does not bode well for the future of humanity.

 

[Foxsea]

Apart from the real threats of putting more CO2 into the air and the oceans, building a pipeline to send millions of barrels of raw bitumen from Alberta’s oil sands to refineries in China will make Sinopec richer – but at the expense of consumers and non-energy businesses across Canada. In her economic report Robyn Allan projects that the Northern Gateway pipeline will reduce Canada’s GDP, increase unemployment and put downward pressure on personal incomes. It will impose a two-to-three-dollar per-barrel increase in the price of oil – something she describes as a “price shock” that the Canadian economy can ill afford at this time. Even Enbridge's analysis admits that there will be no net benefit to Canada if the project does not secure the so-called "Asian Premium" or a higher crude oil price. But by capturing that premium for crude oil, the project will effectively raise Canadian oil prices for the next 30 years.

Higher oil prices mean a decrease in family purchasing power, higher prices for industries who use oil as an input into their production process, higher rates of unemployment in non-oil industry related sectors, a decline in real GDP, a decline in government revenues, an increase in inflation, an increase in interest rates and appreciation of the Canadian dollar. Allan’s report concludes that industry predictions that the pipeline will add $270 billion to the Canadian economy over the next 30 years are fatally flawed because they don’t factor in the depressing effect of an across-the-board increase in oil prices. By doing more upgrading and refining in Canada, we can make sure that Canadians keep much more of the value created by development within the country.

Northern Gateway pipeline, if approved by cabinet, would close Canada’s window of opportunity for “moving up the value ladder” for at least another generation. The pipeline will dramatically undermine the economics of Canadian-based upgrading and refining. In the process, we’ll be forced, again, into the role of primary resource extractors. China will take the jobs and profits associated with adding value to our resources, and we’ll be left with pollution and inflation. It may even drive existing Canadian refineries out of business. I fail to see how Stephen Harper and other promoters of the Northern Gateway pipeline can argue that this approach is in the interest of Canada. The economic and environmental evidence clearly suggests that we will seriously regret opening the door to bitumen exports to China.

http://www.robynallan.com/wp-conten...sment-of-Northern-Gateway-January-31-2012.pdf

 

[reelfast]

and, smoking does not lead to lung cancer. all the same arguments applied to climate change with the sheepel following right along.

the first tanker tragedy in Harrow strait may be a late wakeup call but it will be all over for BC and what was once a pristine coast. heavy tar is still an issue in AK and how long ago was that tanker incident??? and of course the pipeline folks assured the citizens of Michigan state that all would be safe. 4+ years later, that bitumen has yet to be cleaned up, sitting on the bottom of one of the most beautiful river system in the upper part of that state. now imagine that into the Fraser or any other of the various classic waters of BC.

playing with nitro for a buck is a fools mission and Harper takes the cake on that score. the big question for us is will Obama bend to the big oil and gas lobby. the guy has proved to be a chump in his own right but that would be unforgivable.

 

[ziggy]

and, smoking does not lead to lung cancer. all the same arguments applied to climate change with the sheepel following right along.

the first tanker tragedy in Harrow strait may be a late wakeup call but it will be all over for BC and what was once a pristine coast. heavy tar is still an issue in AK and how long ago was that tanker incident??? and of course the pipeline folks assured the citizens of Michigan state that all would be safe. 4+ years later, that bitumen has yet to be cleaned up, sitting on the bottom of one of the most beautiful river system in the upper part of that state. now imagine that into the Fraser or any other of the various classic waters of BC.

playing with nitro for a buck is a fools mission and Harper takes the cake on that score. the big question for us is will Obama bend to the big oil and gas lobby. the guy has proved to be a chump in his own right but that would be unforgivable.

Isn't Alaska Oil still have transitting the coast reelfast? Obama has sold out just as surely as did all the other Presidents since the Exxon Valdez. There seems to be some kind of myth that vAlakan tanker traffic is safe, yet evidence in Prince William sound suggests different.

 

[reelfast]

yes AK oil is still coming down the coast. in fact, it would seem some of those tankers are headed to Cherry Point rounding Lopez on the E side. after the Valdez disaster, tanker redesign was mandated with mandatory double hulls now the rule. nonetheless, all it will take if for one ship to run aground and it all starts over again.

keeping tankers out of confined, difficult to navigate, areas would seem like the best solution to this transport problem. not sure of the pathway if they were coming from the Vancouver area except they would end up in Harrow strait. is that pathway relatively free of navigation hazards? the remnants of the Valdez spill are still in evidence so after decades, it remains an environmental problem in AK. I am sure the blowout in the gulf of mexico will also continue to produce environmentally damaging residue until long after I am dead.

 

[ziggy]

I guess where I'm confused is why you are OK with tanker traffic in Puget Sound if confined waters is a concern? Why would Obama have a problem with tanker traffic in Canada yet not in home waters? I'm not in favour of tanker traffic but do find it hypocritical that Alaskan tanker traffic seems to be conviently forgotten in all these discussions. Good for their market share, or have we just come to accept it? On another note someone mentioned California was coming out against proposed Canadian tanker traffic yet they accept Alaska traffic? Seems to me if your against tanker traffic you should be against it all?

 

[reelfast]

I guess where I'm confused is why you are OK with tanker traffic in Puget Sound if confined waters is a concern?

I think the concern is not tanker traffic but the pipeline headed right down the middle of the US. as has already been demonstrated, over and over again, any pipeline is a leak waiting to happen. and with bitumen, the clean up really can't be accomplished successfully because of the nature of the product.

increased tanker traffic, by something like a factor of 10x simply raises the odds of something dramatic happening. right now it would seem the ships don't have to press their luck with bad weather or other unfavorable conditions as there are not that many per week making this circuit. once you increase the traffic to that projected with Vancouver being a load site, you up the odds, that all.

 

[Gunsmith]

The bitumen itself cannot be pumped the problem lies in the diluent used in pumping it. It is highly volatile. If it would shipped in the natural undiluted state it is hard to ignite does not flow well or soak easily into ground systems. The biggest issue with bitumen is that it sinks in water, requires more energy to transport and process.
Unfortunately to make returns on this stuff it has to be turned into a extremely volatile compound to be able to move it cheaply. More reason to upgrade at source and transport it as individual components.
Not a good money maker for the giants.

I think the concern is not tanker traffic but the pipeline headed right down the middle of the US. as has already been demonstrated, over and over again, any pipeline is a leak waiting to happen. and with bitumen, the clean up really can't be accomplished successfully because of the nature of the product.

increased tanker traffic, by something like a factor of 10x simply raises the odds of something dramatic happening. right now it would seem the ships don't have to press their luck with bad weather or other unfavorable conditions as there are not that many per week making this circuit. once you increase the traffic to that projected with Vancouver being a load site, you up the odds, that all.

 

[GLG]

I would love to know something from all the strongly opposed - let's fast forward five, ten, fifteen years. Here's the scene; Northern Gateway is not approved, Kinder Morgan falls on its face and doesn't happen, New Prosperity is not developed, Fraser Surrey Docks doesn't expand, No new Coal Projects approved (think Compliance Energy, Teck Coal's Line Creek Project, etc.), Site C is SITE NO. In other words, all of the large economic generators of BC are stopped dead in their tracks.

There are some broad assumptions in here but generally speaking I've found that people opposing NG are opposed to most projects "just because".

What are people of BC doing? what does the financial landscape look like?

That's an excellent question... We should expand that an include all of Canada
Not sure but maybe bring experts from all sectors to find solutions.
We could call it umm......National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
They could produce reports that give us a path to the future.
Wait a minute we have already done that....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Round_Table_on_the_Environment_and_the_Economy

Emerging from the famous Brundtland Report, Our Common Future, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE or Round Table) was a model for convening diverse and competing interests around one table to create consensus ideas and viable suggestions for sustainable development. The NRTEE focused on sustaining Canada’s prosperity without borrowing resources from future generations or compromising their ability to live securely. The Conservative government of Stephen Harper ended funding to NRTEE, which will cease to exist after March 31, 2013.

The National Round Table was an independent policy advisory agency to the Government of Canada. Its mandate was to raise awareness among Canadians and their governments about the challenges of sustainable development.

Over 25-year it released dozens of reports on priority issues – forests, brownfields, infrastructure, energy, water, air, climate change, and more. It offered advice to governments on how best to reconcile and integrate the often divergent challenges of economic prosperity and environmental conservation.

It brought together hundreds of leaders and experts with first-hand knowledge in a diversity of areas. Its Members, appointed by the Federal government, were active in businesses, universities, environmentalism, labour, public policy, and community life from across Canada.

Here is the thing... this was bad news for tarsands and need to be shut down.
It was shut down and wiped from the webservers.
I guess it was costing so much money to leave sitting on some server.
An the url was far to much money to keep going....
Yea that's humor but it's not funny.
FYI server space runs 200 a year and the url is another 25.
Remind you of how Cohen Report website went dark.

Yup the reports are still out there in cyberspace because groups scrambled to save them.
I saved NRTEE reports if anyone needs a copy.

If action speaks louder then words... I think we can judge Harper.
He sold out to the tarsands and is covering his tracks.

 

[Dennis.t]

Munch, munch, munch...

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.leaderpost.com/business/...+when+mixed+with+sediments/9386548/story.html
Diluted bitumen sinks when mixed with sediments, federal report says


BY VIVIAN LUK, THE CANADIAN PRESS JANUARY 14, 2014 5:40 PM

2

VANCOUVER - Diluted bitumen, the molasses-like product that would be transported by the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, sinks in salt water when battered by waves and mixed with sediments, according to a new study by the federal government.

However, when free of sediments, the crude floats even after evaporation and exposure to light, the study determined.

The report, conducted by Environment Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Natural Resources Canada, also said that the commercial dispersant Corexit 9500 used in cleaning up conventional spills had a limited effect on dispersing diluted bitumen.

Whether the oil sinks or floats in the event of a spill has been a source of debate, pitting environmentalists against supporters of projects such as the Northern Gateway pipeline. Part of the argument has been that if the oil sinks to the ocean floor, it's harder to recover.

The study examined two blends of crude, the Access Western Blend and Cold Lake Blend, which represent the highest volume of diluted bitumen, or dilbit, products transported by pipeline in Canada between 2012 and 2013.

"This work demonstrates that, in waters where fine- to moderate-sized sediment is present, these oils are at risk to sink, when there is a high degree of mixing energy available," the report said.

The experiment compared the two dilbit blends to an oil used for marine ship fuel.

The oils were evaporated at what the paper said was a typical marine temperature range. They were also exposed to 120 hours of light under a UV lamp. The dilbit samples did not sink in either cases.

When mixed in a tube with salt water, the dilbit samples remained afloat. However, when mixed with three types of sediments of various sizes, the results differed.

"In general, mixtures with kaolin (a particulate) formed finely divided oil-sediment particles that sank in the salt water, with one exception for the highly weathered fractions for both AWB and CLB," the report said.

"Mixtures with the larger particles of diatomaceous earth likewise dispersed and sank, though a portion of the oil remained unmixed and floating on the surface. Mixtures with the coarser sand, however, formed a single, continuous phase of floating oil-salt water entrained mixtures, and only a small portion sank as an oily sediment mixture."

The study acknowledged that the tests were conducted in a synthesized environment, and it's possible that oil products could behave differently in the natural environment — a point echoed by Owen McHugh, manager of emergency management with the Northern Gateway pipeline.

"What does that 12 hours of mixing really hard in a jar (become) equivalent to in the environment? That's something that we need to do additional studies on," McHugh said in an interview.

He said it is also important to consider the actual circumstances surrounding a spill.

"The wind and the waves, and the sediment concentration and how that spill is responded to will all affect the ultimate state of that oil."

McHugh said he has conducted a similar study with similar results, and the findings were presented during public hearings on the pipeline project last year.

Karen Campbell, staff lawyer with Ecojustice, said the study reinforces what many environmental groups have suspected.

"If we now have a conclusion that says this stuff is going to sink and it's not going to stay floating on the water, so you're not going to be able to use skimmers, you're not going to be able to use dispersants, then we actually have a much greater risk of the impacts of a spill," she said.

"It changes the conclusions about the impact of the project."

In the federal study, the dilbit samples were also placed in a wave tank facility in Dartmouth, N.S., to see how they would react to a chemical dispersant that has proven effective with conventional crude spills. In non-breaking waves, the oil remained on the surface.

But under breaking waves, the chemical caused only partial dispersion, the study said.

There is no record of chemical dispersant used on an actual dilbit spill, and since the composition of different dilbit varies, finding an effective dispersant may be challenging, the report concluded.

In 2010, roughly 843,000 gallons of diluted bitumen spilled from an Enbridge (TSX: ENB) pipeline into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan.

The oil was carried downstream during a flood. Even though much of it was sopped up, about 10 to 20 per cent mixed with sediment and sank to the bottom of the river, the report said.

Conducting research on how diluted bitumen would behave in a marine environment was one of the 209 conditions announced by a review panel that approved the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline in December.

The pipeline — if given final approval by the federal government — would carry diluted bitumen from Alberta's oil sands to tankers on the British Columbia coast.

Campbell said she hopes the federal government will give the study some weight when it makes its decision.

"It was one of the more contentious issues in the panel deliberations, it's got real implications for the safety of this project and what will really happen when the oil spill takes place," she said.

 

[reelfast]

the dilbit in Michigan state remains at the bottom of the river after some 4+ years. cleanup is impossible, get ready.