Northern Gateway APPROVED

Discussion in 'Conservation, Fishery Politics and Management.' started by IronNoggin, Dec 19, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

  2. chris73

    chris73 Well-Known Member

    Remember Exxon Valdez in Alaska?

    When the Exxon Valdez supertanker hit a reef off the Alaskan coast, 11 of its cargo tanks ruptured, dumping 11 million gallons of crude into Prince William Sound. But the spill could have been much worse — the Valdez was carrying 53 million gallons.

    In terms of sheer volume, the Exxon Valdez spill ranks as the 36th worst oil spill in history; however, the spill was far from small. Despite attempts to use dispersing agents and oil skimming ships, oil washed onto 1,300 miles of Alaskan coastline. Today, oil remains a few inches below the surface on many of Alaska’s beaches.

    Responders found carcasses of more than 35,000 birds and 1,000 sea otters, which was considered to be a fraction of the animal death toll because carcasses typically sink to the seabed. It’s estimated 250,000 seabirds, 2,800 sea otters, 300 harbor seals, 250 bald eagles, up to 22 killer whales died along with billions of salmon and herring eggs.

    Only a quarter of Exxon Valdez’s cargo created this disaster. Now imagine today’s oil supertankers have about 3 to 4 times the total capacity of the Exxon Valdez. Can you now imagine the full impact of a complete spill of such a supertanker? Supertankers operated by foreigners in our treacherous waters? 1,300 miles of coast were polluted by Exxon Valdez. A complete spill by a today’s supertanker dumps 16 times the amount of oil in the sea. Good luck BC!
  3. GDW

    GDW Active Member

    It's not too late a change in government at the next federal election could halt all this BS but who really believes all of Canada would vote for change - not me.

    I'm sure the conservatives will build in huge penalties for the next government if they back out too but it is what it is I never thought for a moment this pipeline wouldn't happen its had the green light since before it was announced this last couple years has just been posturing to make the process look good.
  4. SerengetiGuide

    SerengetiGuide Well-Known Member

    It's not approved, but has been recommended to the federal government for approval. NEB rarely says no to pipelines so this is not unexpected news and changes very little.
  5. GLG

    GLG Well-Known Member

    Brought to you by the people that know the cost of everything but the value of nothing.
    It's not over fellas, but it is going to get interesting.
    Saving my pennies for the next phase of the fight.
  6. Foxsea

    Foxsea Well-Known Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 19, 2013
  7. tincan

    tincan Well-Known Member

    I realize many on here (including myself) are 100% opposed to Northern Gateway pipeline based on the environmental risks (certainties) alone but since we are constantly told that it's a tradeoff between environment and economics we should all have a good handle on the fact that this is NOT a good project from an economic standpoint either, especially for BC but for Canada as a whole. I will admit that a handful of Canadians will benefit hugely if this pipeline is built. Those handful of people do NOT include you and me. I have followed the economic side of things quite closely and I have yet to hear anything close to a rebuttal or refusal to the facts presented in the video and accompanying economic assessments below.


    As much as BCer's like our environment I think we need to show people the true economics of this project to get the masses on board for a true opposition. I think videos like the one above can help to accomplish this.

    Lot's of other reading for those interested here -
  8. reelfast

    reelfast Active Member

  9. GLG

    GLG Well-Known Member

  10. fshnfnatic

    fshnfnatic Well-Known Member

    Exellent video GLG. Thanks for posting that.
  11. walleyes

    walleyes Well-Known Member

    Ahhhh,, a nice early Christmas present,,, nice..

    Should pick up rig activity here in Alberta soon.

    Now,, just boot a few hippies out of the way,, pay off the Indian bands (as per usual) and off we go,, hopefully they start to build with in the next couple years..
  12. GLG

    GLG Well-Known Member

    I find your comments disturbing and objectionable.
    Mind you with comments like that perhaps you don't grasp the problem or the consequences.
    To point one small thing out.. since when do you use rigs with projects like Jackpine Tar Sands mine.
    You should have said that the bulldozer operators are going to be busy.
    After all they have 6500+ hectors of wetlands to destroy for your precious.
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 22, 2013
  13. outback

    outback Member

    the risk is not equal to the gain - the amount of potential damage potential does not make any sense for this province. obviously the conservatives are gonna give this project the green light.

    were still the fight, and the next couple years are going to be interesting to say the least.

    the provincial government is still in talks, and currently still saying no which means it cant go ahead yet.

    they need to sweeten the deal 10X for BC what it is now before it should be approved.
  14. soxy

    soxy Member

    So you figure it should be approved if the Feds give $$$ to BC or the risk is not equal to the gain?
  15. GLG

    GLG Well-Known Member

    <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->
    I read the report and it seemed to come down to that one quote.
    It doesn't matter what the people want.
    It doesn't matter if you damage the land,water and air.
    It doesn't matter that not one drop of that oil is for Canadians.
    All that matters is that you think you will make a buck.
    Roll the dice, nothing can go wrong, right?
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 22, 2013
  16. Gunsmith

    Gunsmith Well-Known Member

    I can't see why there is such a rush to get it out. All that will be left is empty cupboards and the mess after the party. Keep the boom and give me a steady process.
  17. soxy

    soxy Member

    Profit margins.....

    A recent report by research house Wood Mackenzie shows break-even costs for building new steam-driven [in-situ] projects is in the $65 – $70 a barrel range.

    Mining developments – the truck and shovel method accounts for a fifth of all projects – need at least $90 – $100 oil.

    Existing projects in Alberta can still make money at $45 a barrel.

    Existing projects are not threatened, but new projects are. And here's a Globe & Mail report from June 4, 2012.

    “Oil sands projects display some of the highest break-evens of all global upstream projects,” the firm said. “The potential for wide and volatile differentials could result in operators delaying or cancelling unsanctioned projects.”

    New oil sands mines, for example, require prices of around $80 (U.S.) a barrel to break even, Wood Mackenzie found.

    Add an upgrader, the “pre-refinery” that transforms heavy oil into a lighter crude that can be further refined into diesel and gasoline, and the needed break-even rises to above $100.

    So-called “in situ” projects, which use wells and underground steam injection to extract oil sands crude, are less vulnerable, with a break even of about $60.

    These mining breakeven prices are very high. Right now, WTI crude is trading at about $97/barrel and Brent is trading at about $111/barrel. New mining developments, including an upgrader, have a breakeven of about $100/barrel, which makes the economics very marginal indeed.
  18. sammyslabber

    sammyslabber Active Member

    GLG,that´s a VERY IMPACTing video...I´m going to post it on my Facebook and share it with my Colombian friends...

    The world needs to know...what goes on between power hungry Governments cronies & their BIG oil buddies!
  19. ReelSlim

    ReelSlim Well-Known Member

    What they fail to mention is that due to limited pipeline capacity.....any more recent operations are forced to pay a huge royalty just to have the privilege to rent pipeline capacity. The facility that I work at is open pit mine and we pay roughly $45/ barrel to send our product south to be refined. That $45 is all part of that high conversion cost to produce. With more projects on the horizon and more demand for the resource I'm sure you can see who will be paying for the high pipeline ransoms that are be charged?
  20. soxy

    soxy Member

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page