• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

NDP introducing bill to ban tankers off BC coast

The NDP gave up the blue collars awhile ago for the Latte sippers, thee is still some latent Blue collar support mostly because their parents supported it or no place else to go. The problem for the NDP is that the labour movements is much better at getting the vote out, volunteers and donations than the latte crowd, eventually the labour vote is going to dwindle and along with it NDP grassroots grunt labour.

Had Endbridge planned on a refinery in BC, say near Dawson Creek and done far more prep work, they might have gained more support in BC. I don't feel sorry for them, they are stewing in a pot mostly of their own making. Now they are proposing a terminal near Prince Rupert, but zero support from the City of Prince Rupert. Hell even Kitimat didn't want them and that town was really hurting!
 
Colin P said:
The NDP gave up the blue collars awhile ago for the Latte sippers, thee is still some latent Blue collar support mostly because their parents supported it or no place else to go. The problem for the NDP is that the labour movements is much better at getting the vote out, volunteers and donations than the latte crowd, eventually the labour vote is going to dwindle and along with it NDP grassroots grunt labour.

Had Endbridge planned on a refinery in BC, say near Dawson Creek and done far more prep work, they might have gained more support in BC. I don't feel sorry for them, they are stewing in a pot mostly of their own making. Now they are proposing a terminal near Prince Rupert, but zero support from the City of Prince Rupert. Hell even Kitimat didn't want them and that town was really hurting!
Click to expand...


Agree 100%. It's a self-inflicted wound ... BUT we still need ports, the plural matters, to get our petroleum to global markets and we need pipelines to connect the oil fields to the seaports. This is, or should be, a national priority and Canadians should grasp that fact.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Agree 100%. It's a self-inflicted wound ... BUT we still need ports, the plural matters, to get our petroleum to global markets and we need pipelines to connect the oil fields to the seaports. This is, or should be, a national priority and Canadians should grasp that fact.
Click to expand...

After reading this post one word jumped to my mind: miserly.  The prime characteristic of the small c conservative.  And perhaps the true Scots legacy in Canada.  Too many of our fellow Canadians fail to understand just how advantaged we are and sit on top of their treasure chest in threadbare rags bemoaning the cold while unwilling to part with their horde to buy warmer clothes.  They are "scotch" (in all the pejorative senses that that word implies) to the core.

I went to school in England at an English state school and every morning we had assembly, complete with national anthem and prayers (multiple).  As well we would get inspirational readings, often from the Bible.  One of those stuck in my mind so it must have been repeated.

Matthew 25:14-30

English Standard Version (ESV)

The Parable of the Talents

14 “For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants[a] and entrusted to them his property. 15 To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. 16 He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. 17 So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. 18 But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. 19 Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. 20 And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.’ 21 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant.[c] You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 22 And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.’ 23 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
Click to expand...


Weeping and gnashing of teeth seems to be Canada's real national pastime.

 
E.R. Campbell said:
Agree 100%. It's a self-inflicted wound ... BUT we still need ports, the plural matters, to get our petroleum to global markets and we need pipelines to connect the oil fields to the seaports. This is, or should be, a national priority and Canadians should grasp that fact.
Click to expand...

People grasp the fact, they just want someone else to take the risk. Telling a Indian Band that everything will be fine after they witnessed the sinking of a ferry that was traveling the same route that it has traveled for 20 years, does not fly well. In fact a couple of weeks ago I was in a review up in Prince Rupert when a freighter listing from being holed by hitting a rock limped by to get repairs done. That freighter was leaving the dock under Pilot control on a nice day and hit a well known rock. There had to be reps from 5 FN bands there and they all said; "This is what we are talking about, it's not a case of if, but when"  Whether you agree or not, they have a point and the companies often gloss over the issues with meaningless statements. 
 
Colin P said:
The NDP gave up the blue collars awhile ago for the Latte sippers, thee is still some latent Blue collar support mostly because their parents supported it or no place else to go.
Click to expand...

I figured that out a couple of weeks ago when I was at the (ritzy) MacDonald Hotel in Edmonton and saw Thomas Mulcair walk in to the bar. Everyone obviously knew him well there!
 
Colin P said:
People grasp the fact, they just want someone else to take the risk. Telling a Indian Band that everything will be fine after they witnessed the sinking of a ferry that was traveling the same route that it has traveled for 20 years, does not fly well. In fact a couple of weeks ago I was in a review up in Prince Rupert when a freighter listing from being holed by hitting a rock limped by to get repairs done. That freighter was leaving the dock under Pilot control on a nice day and hit a well known rock. There had to be reps from 5 FN bands there and they all said; "This is what we are talking about, it's not a case of if, but when"  Whether you agree or not, they have a point and the companies often gloss over the issues with meaningless statements.
Click to expand...

I appreciate what you're saying.  But,  business and indeed life is not without risks.  As a country, we all want nice things.  The FN people want those transfer payments from the Feds, where do they  or the folks in BC think the money comes from?  Certainly not from the trees they're hugging.  Everyone seems to be a NIMBY in BC.  Happy for the money as long as someone else is willing to take the risk to earn it.  Shipping will continue to travel off the coast and I believe will only increase in intensity.  They can either try to work with the flow to make it better or be run over by the freight train.
 
There is a real world risk and there is little confidence by the public into the oversight or the determination to regulate the companies. This is why LNG is doing better, there is a risk, but the longterm fallout from a major incident is shortlived and the reveune generation and jobs are pretty clear. LNG has quite a bit of support other than the areas that have to deal with the extraction issues. I suspect the social license to build endbridge is shot for the next 5-10 years.
 
I hope they can enjoy their solar or pyramid powered automobiles as they don't seem to want to have fossil fuel in their lives.  If they successfully manage to close down or discourage development of the oil sands etc, that's what they'll need to start working on.  For good or bad, shale gas has been pretty well killed off here in Atlantic Canada.
 
I agree with Colin P.  People have seen the various maritime accidents that have occurred and can envision what it would mean for the coastline, and the people whose livelihoods are based on it, if even one tanker foundered.  Add in other incidents such as the recent Mount Polley tailings pond collapse, where an engineer certified and government inspected dam failed with catastrophic results, and people just do not trust that it won't happen.  What they stand to lose is too precious to assume the risk.
 
Colin, Privateer:

You are both sensible people, mostly.  You know it is not good enough to keep saying "you can't".  You also know that, with respect to the oil sands "we must".  We must get that oil to tidewater and out to the High Seas.  If Queen Charlotte Sound is not the answer what is the answer?
 
Kirkhill said:
Colin, Privateer:

You are both sensible people, mostly.  You know it is not good enough to keep saying "you can't".  You also know that, with respect to the oil sands "we must".  We must get that oil to tidewater and out to the High Seas.  If Queen Charlotte Sound is not the answer what is the answer?
Click to expand...

NB or NS would be logical choices. Saint John or Halifax could definately use the work. With a Liberal government in NB now it might also offer a more convenient choice for employment than fracking, which was a defining issue. Although part of me thinks that the Liberals in NB will be as against a pipeline as they are fracking despite either being NBs only chance at anything approaching economic success.
 
Short summary of tanker/pipeline politics: "NO, except for the route which serves the stations at which I fuel my car and the route which fuels the aircraft I fly each winter to Hawaii."

Yes, it's always a case of "when".  Accept risk or no fuel.  Choose one.
 
Kirkhill said:
Colin, Privateer:

You are both sensible people, mostly.  You know it is not good enough to keep saying "you can't".  You also know that, with respect to the oil sands "we must".  We must get that oil to tidewater and out to the High Seas.  If Queen Charlotte Sound is not the answer what is the answer?
Click to expand...

Two parts
Marine Terminal- near Grassy Point, good from a Marine side, not good for access. https://www.google.ca/maps/@54.5082221,-130.4215597,14z
The best location for a marine terminal is away from the mouth's of the Skeena, Fraser and the Nass rivers and with almost a straight shot to the ocean.

Pipeline- Any pipeline coming to this coast has to go through some nasty terrain. Southern half is better than the northern half. The NW of BC is not that Geo-technically stable and if an accident happened in the winter, portions of the pipelines may not be accessible for months. A pipeline to the east covers more ground but less access issues and more stable terrain. However significantly longer and therefore inducing more risk points.
The West coast is closer to markets and a shorter pipeline route and much of it through Crown land. However the geo-techicnal issues are large and the political landscape in BC with the unsolved(able) First nation issues is a major obstacle. Unlike the rest of Canada, we have few treaty areas and 130% of the land is claimed by FN's. Most of the FN's now are pro-some development and want access to revenue and job markets. some are very good at wheeling and dealing, some are unrealistic. Some FN's put up obstacles to get a better deal, others on principle. Poor handling I think has made the project toxic (purely my own opinion) and giving it a rest for now and do quiet discussions away from the public and media would be best.

BC has to many issues already on the plate with Fracking, water usage, 9 proposed LNG terminals (and pipelines) and Site C to name a few. Endbridge is a "Bridge to far" for now.   
 
The sun is shining.  Now is the time to be making hay.

Deferring decisions will likely result in a repeat of the MacKenzie Valley fiascos - decisions deferred indefinitely until the sun disappeared.    Another few billion dollars of sales potential lost.

But,  I am getting the picture. 

BC's position is "I'm alright Jack". 

I wonder if Alberta doesn't need its own "Prince Rupert Corridor".  Prince George and the NE is a long way from the Lower Mainland and apparently very close to Edmonton.  >:D

 
You need to go through some very tough to negotiate with FN traditional territory. At Prince Rupert the Lax and Metalkla have already stated their position on oil. They can't handle the current influx of LNG project much less an oil terminal. The LNG market is time sensitive and the coastal FN's are receptive, pushing for a terminal there now may ruin LNG chances. A oil terminal was proposed for Prince Rupert in the 80's went nowhere. The oil is not evaporating and neither are the markets, that one is not time sensitive. Signing long term LNG contracts at current pricing is, because there is likely to be a glut on the world market as fracking becomes more common.   
 
A fairly recent court judgement in Alberta said Indians need to be consulted, but they aren't required to approve a project.  B.C., for the most part, lacks the comprehensive treaties that exist on the prairies but I think the government can consider the net benefit to society to over-ride Indian concerns.
 
There are conflicting views on what that courtcase means depending if you speak to government or a First Nations. http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/2157/tsilhqot-in-nation-scores-big-win-in-land-title-case.html
 
I think this is the Alberta case concerning the adequacy of consultation in the numbered treaty areas.  The land was surrendered and the remaining treaty interest involves hunting and fishing on public land.

http://www.projectlawblog.com/2014/03/06/cold-lake-first-nations-v-alberta-tourism-parks-and-recreation/

Despite the judgement in the B.C. case, we have yet to see what overwhelming public interest can trump Indian rights on otherwise public land.  I might think that an $ 8 billion project providing thousands of jobs would qualify.  B.C. would have been papered with treaties in the last 2 centuries but all jurisprudence had been that Indian rights had been extinguished prior to confederation, conquest and all that.  That is until the Supreme Court decided otherwise not all that long ago.
 
As it is we don't even have the people to build all the projects that the FN will support, so focus on the LNG and use that time to solve some of the issues around the oil and be prepared to make some big changes to the current plan and I suspect those would be location and building a refinery. Not to mention for BC the LNG terminals will employ a lot more people at the terminal than the oil terminal will. The long term job employment prospects for the oil terminal and pipeline are not that high.

Pacific NW LNG claim 330 direct jobs and 300 support jobs just for the export terminal, that's 1 terminal, it's likely that at the most 3 will be built, for about 2,000 good well paying jobs. Note this does not include the pipeline long term jobs

Enbridge claims 560 jobs for BC, but is not very clear where those jobs would be and it appears to cover the whole pipeline and terminal.

I don't have numbers on how many people have full time employment maintaining a pipeline but I am guessing around 50-100 plus contracted crews for clearing and repairs.

If you postpone Endbridge to after the LNG is constructed you will have a better project and people who have constructed the LNG terminals and pipeline can move onto the oil pipeline and terminal, this will reduce the boom and bust cycle and deal with worker shortages. 
 
Colin - more bodies required suggests more moving pieces and more options for things to go wrong.

LNG Process

conocophillips_optimized_cascade_process.jpg


Requiring electricity (managed in a Zone 0, Class 1 Div 1 environment), refrigeration and a whole range of interesting explosive/flammable volatiles each capable of bringing the local population low, with or without an explosion.

Oil Pipeline?

Pumps and pressure switches. 

I would sooner manage a bitumen line than a plant containing a mix of methane, propane and ethylene under pressure any day.  :nod:

http://alexanderknight.ca/documents/MSDS/msds-bitumen-syncrude.pdf
http://avogadro.chem.iastate.edu/MSDS/methane.pdf
http://www.superiorpropane.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Propane_MSDS_ENG.pdf
https://www.mathesongas.com/pdfs/msds/MAT09330.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top