Feds buy KM pipeline

california said:
The Federal Government taking over a project and assuming the costs risks that should have been borne by a private company is a sad state of affairs for sure. The government has no expertise building such a project, and it puts the taxpayer at unnecessary risk. Regardless of if you support the project or not, the federal government of the day determined that given the risks and benefits it was in the overall interest of the country and approved it. Clearly there are risks to having more tanker traffic. No project is without risks. That is the purpose of the federal government, to weigh those and make a decision. People have the right to protest (peacefully and legally not how Elizabeth May did it) and will have the opportunity to vote for a party (a choice of two) that would stop it in the upcoming federal election. That's how democracy works. Horgan's taking the country hostage is not acceptable, not within provincial jurisdiction, and plain wrong. Whats next, can his greenies decide GMO wheat is harmful to the worlds health, and he can block it from being transported through BC? He and the greens are not the world's nor the countries conscience. Overall the world needs to move towards greener energy, the government will and should continue to promote it, and the end of oil will one day come. However in the mean time oil is a global commodity, not building this project will do nothing to further green energy as Teporah Berman and the other ultra-greens claim, all it will do is ensure Canadian producers continue to get a discounted price, and allow the oil to be supplied by other countries like middle eastern ones that promote terrorism, or enemies of the west like Russia. When the end of oil comes, all we will have done is ensure more Canadian oil was left in the ground, and more middle eastern and Russian oil was not.
Click to expand...
With your way of thinking we may as well get all the jobs and cash for B.C. We may as well make the most cash and forget about Wild Salmon and the awesome natural beauty we have and cash in. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...h-9-6b-to-b-c-says-fraser-institute-1.1221051
 
I’d like to see the Feds actually put some money into their so called “World Class Ocean Protection Plan”? I think the 1.5 Billion on paper, for three Oceans over a five year period is BS. I’d like to see the actual purchase of cleanup vessels and tugs as opposed to an airy fairy promise. I’d like to see hard numbers on how much is committed to each Ocean and for what? A timeline for equipment delivery! Actual equipment purchase and Manning.

Governments are famous for coming up with these grandiose promises that are never fulfilled! Remember the fighter aircraft? How about the National shipbuilding project? I see this as just a broad brush attempt to be seen to be doing something, while really doing nothing! So far all I see is a plan to lease a couple of tugs and install towing bits on our decrepit Coast Guard vessels that don’t likely have the power or fuel budget to tow much.

Hope I’m wrong!
 
UkeeDreamin said:
I think it will be reconciling his indigenous reconciliation agenda with his ownership of a pipeline that has to pass through dozens of untreatied First Nations territories, many of whom are opposed to the project. It would have been a tough balance hiding behind the federal regulators and pretending he was honest about reconciliation, it will be a whole other animal being the owner of the project.
Click to expand...

JT publicly state that they may sell the pipeline back to Indigenous nations. I suspect they will all profit greatly in royalties and will be on board.

Thats a good thing the more money they can get from other project the less they will need to rape our rivers for salmon. Id rather they generate income from a pipeline then from salmon fisheries.

https://www.theprogress.com/news/cheam-chief-ernie-crey-welcomes-tmx-buyout-deal-by-feds/
 
Last edited:
california said:
The Federal Government taking over a project and assuming the costs risks that should have been borne by a private company is a sad state of affairs for sure. The government has no expertise building such a project, and it puts the taxpayer at unnecessary risk. Regardless of if you support the project or not, the federal government of the day determined that given the risks and benefits it was in the overall interest of the country and approved it. Clearly there are risks to having more tanker traffic. No project is without risks. That is the purpose of the federal government, to weigh those and make a decision. People have the right to protest (peacefully and legally not how Elizabeth May did it) and will have the opportunity to vote for a party (a choice of two) that would stop it in the upcoming federal election. That's how democracy works. Horgan's taking the country hostage is not acceptable, not within provincial jurisdiction, and plain wrong. Whats next, can his greenies decide GMO wheat is harmful to the worlds health, and he can block it from being transported through BC? He and the greens are not the world's nor the countries conscience. Overall the world needs to move towards greener energy, the government will and should continue to promote it, and the end of oil will one day come. However in the mean time oil is a global commodity, not building this project will do nothing to further green energy as Teporah Berman and the other ultra-greens claim, all it will do is ensure Canadian producers continue to get a discounted price, and allow the oil to be supplied by other countries like middle eastern ones that promote terrorism, or enemies of the west like Russia. When the end of oil comes, all we will have done is ensure more Canadian oil was left in the ground, and more middle eastern and Russian oil was not.
Click to expand...

I knew the day would come that you and I agree on something! Nice one.
 
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...-sands-Alberta-Kalamazoo-Keystone-XL-Enbridge

Some interesting reading on what diluted bitumen is and how it differs from regular crude oil. Let's just hope we never have a spill into our waters.
Also, with the Feds now owning a pipeline, who is the regulatory board responsible for over seeing safe operation of said pipeline? Would it not be a conflict of interest for the Feds to be in charge of monitoring safe operation, transport and shipping of a pipeline they own? I don't pretend to be an expert on this, but I do have real concerns over this whole issue. I value our beautiful environment and don't want to see disaster hit and wipe out all we have worked hard on to preserve. I'm still a NO on the proposed pipeline.
 
Last edited:
by saying no to the pipeline you are inadvertently supporting oil by rail to that same terminal, that oil by rail snakes down the thompson and fraser rivers. tanker traffic has already increased a bit from this. imho a major spill in either of those rivers would have a much greater impact on our salmon resource and be much more difficult to clean up. km has been continuing work on the port facility thru all this as they know if it doesn't come by pipe it is coming by rail, not as much but still it would increase the present oil by rail by at least 3x.

In a perfect world we wouldn't have to deal with this but the reality is we do and the feds, of whom I'm not a fan of, did the right thing here imho. I live right across the inlet from the km and parkland (former chevron) loading facilities and refinery and have watched these tankers come and go for over 30 years. unfortunately this is one of the safest places on the coast to load these things. many of my neighbors are for the pipeline from a common sense perspective, and some are against it with a not in my backyard attitude ( even though it's been there longer than they have, lol)

we have been pillaged on our oil prices by the yanks long enough, the media hasn't helped at all with about 90 plus % of their articles supporting and giving credibility to many of the protesters many of whom have no real idea of why they are protesting and many are misinformed. there are many legitimate environmental protesters who are well informed and I respect their decisions and right to protest. what I do have a problem with is the misinformed professional protesters and those that are supported by the yanks.
 
New Craigslist ad down east (just trying to add a little humour)

For sale: Stalled and collapsing pipeline project (as is) - $9000000000 (BC)
00202_1hkO8ECrl8D_600x450.jpg


For sale: one pipeline project, in fair condition. Comes with federal approval. (subject to 15 legal challenges, but it'll be fine). Also comes with a vintage 1950s pipeline.

The vintage pipeline is a handyman's dream project. It has been in place since the 1950s and has only had around 70 spills - a great fixer upper.

Nestled in a cosy right of way, with mountain, river and ocean views, and through prime agricultural and dense residential real estate in Vancouver's red-hot housing market! Close to schools, day cares and community centres. (the neighbours can be a little loud, but we find it's easiest just to ignore them)

Buyers must be prepared to hold $500M in cash for oil spill liability, which we think is such a low likelihood that we haven't even done any modelling.

Asking $9B (CAD) OBO. Ask for Justin.
https://ottawa.craigslist.ca/hvo/d/for-sale-stalled-and/6601355647.html
 
nicnat said:
by saying no to the pipeline you are inadvertently supporting oil by rail to that same terminal, that oil by rail snakes down the thompson and fraser rivers. tanker traffic has already increased a bit from this. imho a major spill in either of those rivers would have a much greater impact on our salmon resource and be much more difficult to clean up. km has been continuing work on the port facility thru all this as they know if it doesn't come by pipe it is coming by rail, not as much but still it would increase the present oil by rail by at least 3x.

In a perfect world we wouldn't have to deal with this but the reality is we do and the feds, of whom I'm not a fan of, did the right thing here imho. I live right across the inlet from the km and parkland (former chevron) loading facilities and refinery and have watched these tankers come and go for over 30 years. unfortunately this is one of the safest places on the coast to load these things. many of my neighbors are for the pipeline from a common sense perspective, and some are against it with a not in my backyard attitude ( even though it's been there longer than they have, lol)

we have been pillaged on our oil prices by the yanks long enough, the media hasn't helped at all with about 90 plus % of their articles supporting and giving credibility to many of the protesters many of whom have no real idea of why they are protesting and many are misinformed. there are many legitimate environmental protesters who are well informed and I respect their decisions and right to protest. what I do have a problem with is the misinformed professional protesters and those that are supported by the yanks.
Click to expand...

By saying NO, I am saying no to diluted bitumen. Refine it to create something that can be mopped up in a spill and doesn't sink and I might change my mind, but it seems to me that the vast majority of environmental risk is on the shoulders of BC. All one has to do is look at an aerial photo in any direction of the tar sands and one realizes that the environment is low on the totem pole with Alberta. Also, my understanding is that this bitumen is not been sent here for refining, instead it is bound for export, so how does that have anything to do with reducing fuels costs for the people of BC? If a tanker ever developed a leak, ran aground or collided with another vessel, the bitumen goes to the bottom and makes it next to impossible to clean up.
 
Islander57 said:
By saying NO, I am saying no to diluted bitumen. Refine it to create something that can be mopped up in a spill and doesn't sink and I might change my mind, but it seems to me that the vast majority of environmental risk is on the shoulders of BC. All one has to do is look at an aerial photo in any direction of the tar sands and one realizes that the environment is low on the totem pole with Alberta. Also, my understanding is that this bitumen is not been sent here for refining, instead it is bound for export, so how does that have anything to do with reducing fuels costs for the people of BC? If a tanker ever developed a leak, ran aground or collided with another vessel, the bitumen goes to the bottom and makes it next to impossible to clean up.
Click to expand...




Do you understand how density’s of materials work? It is impossible for a lighter density to sink into a heavier density. (Dilbit & Bitumen are different)

Just because you read it on Facebook does t make it true.

Also you do know that there is pipe there that has been in service for over 50 years?

If someone uses the argument of the BP gulf coast release and the oil left on the sea floor. That was because they were injecting what’s known as a “dispercent” directly into the stream of oil. This changes the composition of the oil & was done intentionally so it would minimize the spill on surface (completely illegal in Canada).
 
ILHG said:
Do you understand how density’s of materials work? It is impossible for a lighter density to sink into a heavier density. (Dilbit & Bitumen are different)

Just because you read it on Facebook does t make it true.

Also you do know that there is pipe there that has been in service for over 50 years?

If someone uses the argument of the BP gulf coast release and the oil left on the sea floor. That was because they were injecting what’s known as a “dispercent” directly into the stream of oil. This changes the composition of the oil & was done intentionally so it would minimize the spill on surface (completely illegal in Canada).
Click to expand...

What I read wasn't on Facebook, please don't assume that. It came from an article describing the difference between conventional crude and diluted bitumen and what happened when there was a major spill into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. The bitumen began to sink after the chemicals used to dilute the bitumen evaporated. The pipeline in service has not been carrying dilbit for the past 50 years.
 
Islander57 said:
What I read wasn't on Facebook, please don't assume that. It came from an article describing the difference between conventional crude and diluted bitumen and what happened when there was a major spill into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. The bitumen began to sink after the chemicals used to dilute the bitumen evaporated. The pipeline in service has not been carrying dilbit for the past 50 years.
Click to expand...



That’s fair.
One thing that makes it float is a higher density water. The salt water makes a difference. It may not seem like much but it makes the difference.
 
Islander57 said:
By saying NO, I am saying no to diluted bitumen. Refine it to create something that can be mopped up in a spill and doesn't sink and I might change my mind, but it seems to me that the vast majority of environmental risk is on the shoulders of BC. All one has to do is look at an aerial photo in any direction of the tar sands and one realizes that the environment is low on the totem pole with Alberta. Also, my understanding is that this bitumen is not been sent here for refining, instead it is bound for export, so how does that have anything to do with reducing fuels costs for the people of BC? If a tanker ever developed a leak, ran aground or collided with another vessel, the bitumen goes to the bottom and makes it next to impossible to clean up.
Click to expand...
by saying No to the pipeline you are inadvertently supporting the dillbit by rail down our salmon rivers as this is already in progress and has been for a while and it will only increase by alot if this pipeline doesnt get built. the rail is already there the terminal is there, and more tankers are already being loaded. A possible spill in the thompson or fraser scares the h out me and is way more likely than one in the ocean. most people only know or read what the papers print and they don't tell the whole story and probably don't know either but, hey it sells papers. just so many ill informed people on this whole issue.

where were all these protesters when neptune terminals in north van increased coal exports by 3 times just a few years ago??? where were they when the now chem trade chemical plant did their huge conversion project increasing production of chlorine from 400 tons a day to over 600 tons a day, right in north vancouver??? well the yanks weren't supporting those very few protesters because it was of no benefit to them, like buying cheap cdn oil at a steep discount is! also you didn't have the media spewing negative news on those projects like they do with the pipelines on a pretty much a daily basis.
 
You guys know you are arguing with people from the island that voted in 3
Green mla’ including Andrew weaver and one green mp Elizabeth May.

This forums main members are from south Vancouver island and it’s moderated by people from the island.

Just saying...
 
^^^ Good Point^^
 
For those that are opposed to a pipeline being constructed due to the potential for environmental impact, spills, tanker traffic, etc. I'd like you to to consider the alternative.
According to the most recent monthly statistics from the NEB (National Energy Board), there were 170,622 barrels of oil exported per day in March of 2018 nearly setting a record of 5,289,282 barrels of oil for the month (that is 840,522 cubic meters or 840.522000 million liters. This information can be found here: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/sttstc/crdlndptrlmprdct/stt/cndncrdlxprtsrl-eng.html

Since Alberta is the largest Canadian exporter of oil and since BC is the nearest exporting port, I don't think it would take a genius to figure that out. Even if it is transported by rail to the lower mainland for refining, it's still being transported.

According to the Georgia Straight, 2014 was a record year for the number of trains passing through the province carrying various forms of oil. https://www.straight.com/news/800451/record-number-trains-carrying-oil-passed-through-bc-2014.

The unfortunate part of rail cars is that the vast majority of them transport along transportation corridors (close proximity to roads and highways) that pass through highly populated areas. Whether any of us like it or not, this product is going to be exported one way or the other. I think it would be a sobering eye opener to many if you had any understanding of what goods are transported to and from port through BC, including dangerous and hazardous materials. If pipeline developments fail, both CN and CP have major skin in the game to significantly increase rail shipments. Have you wondered why Bill Gates is the largest single shareholder of CN rail?

Just some points to ponder.
 
nicnat said:
by saying No to the pipeline you are inadvertently supporting the dillbit by rail down our salmon rivers as this is already in progress and has been for a while and it will only increase by alot if this pipeline doesnt get built. the rail is already there the terminal is there, and more tankers are already being loaded. A possible spill in the thompson or fraser scares the h out me and is way more likely than one in the ocean. most people only know or read what the papers print and they don't tell the whole story and probably don't know either but, hey it sells papers. just so many ill informed people on this whole issue.

where were all these protesters when neptune terminals in north van increased coal exports by 3 times just a few years ago??? where were they when the now chem trade chemical plant did their huge conversion project increasing production of chlorine from 400 tons a day to over 600 tons a day, right in north vancouver??? well the yanks weren't supporting those very few protesters because it was of no benefit to them, like buying cheap cdn oil at a steep discount is! also you didn't have the media spewing negative news on those projects like they do with the pipelines on a pretty much a daily basis.
Click to expand...

I must have been typing my response as you posted this. Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top