NDP introducing bill to ban tankers off BC coast

[ModlrMike]

The other thing to remember is that this is as much about tankers as it is about leaving Alberta's oil in the ground, so that the US can get its oil to market through the Gulf of Mexico.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I have been getting lots of "education" on LNG over the last few years. One reason why none of them will depend on an outside electrical source is because of the cascading effect of a unplanned shut down of the LNG "train" which leads to the need to burn off the expanding gas. so they plan on having 3 NG gas turbines to run the plant. Interesting enough Pacific NW LNG storage tank is self cooled and the LNG is stored at only a fraction above 1 atmosphere. The plant is sensitive to a shut down caused by weather preventing loading, so they have been paying close attention to wave and wind data at the proposed loading terminal. The area in Prince Rupert they want to build the plants is in a area that is geologically stable, which is good.


Here is a video taken from the actual computer simulation to determine if the ships could operate from the dock. This is their 2nd jetty/trestle design, they are now considering a longer one at 2.7km, the one in this is 2.4km

http://youtu.be/e-h-44iDdWc

 

[Rocky Mountains]

Apparently seeing an emergency shutdown of a natural gas facility processing hundreds of millions of cu ft per day is a sight to behold.  The whole input goes up the stack and is flared to allow for a staged shutdown of input.  You can't deadhead the gas or something's got to give.  I know someone who said his job was to run into the plant when everyone else was running out.  He said the flame started 150 feet above the stack because of the volume of gas.  His next job was in a pulp mill.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Because they have peat on the island to keep the heat radiation from the flare away from it, the stack is going to be between 160m to 180m high!

 

[Kirkhill]

From today's Globe and Mail - Kevin Lynch's solution -  A federally funded Trans-Canada Energy Corridor
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/rewrite-canadas-energy-script/article20924233/

KEVIN LYNCH
Time to rewrite Canada’s energy script
KEVIN LYNCH
Contributed to The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Oct. 06 2014, 3:00 AM EDT

Kevin Lynch is vice-chairman of BMO Financial Group.

Despite having massive unconventional energy reserves, and repeated rhetorical assertions of being an energy superpower, Canada faces an energy security conundrum – one of demand, not supply.

Fatih Birol, chief economist of the International Energy Agency, likens today’s global energy sector to a long-running Broadway play, where suddenly the roles of many of the main energy actors are being reversed. The biggest role reversal is that of the United States, which is being propelled toward net energy self-sufficiency, and energy security, on the tide of the shale-gas revolution. The other key actor switching roles is China, which will soon overtake the United States as the world’s largest energy consumer and inherit its script of insecurity of energy supply.

Canada, whose energy role has been long tied to the U.S, its single export market, will have to edit its script or miss the new energy season.

The new Canadian energy narrative is easy to sketch out, but much harder to write. Canada needs to diversify its energy exports to new markets, particularly fast-growing energy consumers in Asia and possibly the increasingly energy-insecure countries of Western Europe. But achieving this involves many plot twists, since Canada lacks the transportation capacity to ship energy, oil or gas, to these potential markets. And getting the audience onside for the required new pipelines, new port facilities, new volumes of shipping and new environmental risks will necessitate clearer dialogue and better audience participation.

First, we have to shift the script from a parochial debate on “projects and private interest” to a national dialogue on “diversification of our energy markets and the national interest.” Without creating a shared sense of our energy future, it will be difficult to align all the actors and interests. It is difficult to envisage building such a shared vision without either active federal and provincial government leadership or vibrant and informed public discussion.

Second, we need to move away from the current winners-and-losers plot line and introduce the national interest, with its shared benefits and mutual risks, into the script. A national-interest framework of how best to achieve energy diversification would recast the current squabbles about “licensing rights.” The multiple licensing challenge should be to align commercial licence (a project must make economic sense) with social licence (a project that impacts indigenous lands or raises environmental or community issues must make public sense) with policy licence (a project must make policy and regulatory sense) and with innovation licence (a project can alter the risk-return balance through technology, which has the public trust as a problem-solver).

Third, we need some innovation in policy thinking. Continuing as we’re going, repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, is coming dangerously close to that famous definition of insanity. Given the enormity of the change we’re contemplating – pivoting from a single energy export market that has dominated Canadian energy strategy for more than 70 years, to multiple markets on several continents – will require enormous investments and complex planning. Can and should we expect individual firms and projects to efficiently and effectively align the multiple licensing requirements to accomplish this?

One possibility is a public energy transportation corridor, stretching from coast to coast, which could include pipelines, electrical grids and other forms of energy transport. It would be established by government in the national interest. In turn, government would set the rules for those operating within the corridor, to be determined after appropriate public consultation and reflect the multiple licensing objectives. Given this certainty, the private sector would compete to build, own and operate energy transportation facilities within the corridor.

How Canada shapes its energy future will significantly influence our long-term growth prospects and prosperity across the country. We should be clearer about our national interest in the crucial area of energy market diversification.

The Trans Canada Highway

NEB Oil Lines

NEB Gas Lines

Canadian railways

Canadian electrical grid

Beyond the resolution to the electrical grid problems and tying up the Quebec Hydro problem with eastern Canada I can't see how this proposal fundamentally changes the game.

All of the existing east-west connections terminate in Prince Rupert and Vancouver... and we are back to square one.  All this proposal really does is open up a new avenue for routing funds from Alberta to Ottawa and back to BC.  I don't actually have a problem with that as an Albertan and a Canadian.  But ultimately the question remains the same in my mind: how much is it going to cost to make British Columbia accept the terms of Confederation and permit the free passage of goods and services across its territory?

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think that the key difference that Mr Lynch is proposing is:

Second, we need to move away from the current winners-and-losers plot line and introduce the national interest, with its shared benefits and mutual risks, into the script. A national-interest framework of how best to achieve energy diversification would recast the current squabbles about “licensing rights.” The multiple licensing challenge should be to align commercial licence (a project must make economic sense) with social licence (a project that impacts indigenous lands or raises environmental or community issues must make public sense) with policy licence (a project must make policy and regulatory sense) and with innovation licence (a project can alter the risk-return balance through technology, which has the public trust as a problem-solver).

What he is proposing is a major policy and even greater political shift. Our current system, almost enshrined in our Constitution, is all about defining "winners-and-losers" and the devil take the "national interest." It will take a leader of rare vision and courage ~ which means none of the current crop ~ to sell that ... but someone like M. Trudeau, someone with charisma and a clean (political) slate might be able to do it, if he had the vision, of if someone, like a strong Clerk of the Privy Council, shoved a stiff rod of vision up his rear end.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I was involved in the clean up and restoration of this spill, the company alone spent $30,000,000 to clean up 6200 barrels of light crude. Work on the river continues to this day as a result of the spill and the cleanup effects on the river (removal of logjams, etc). There are significant Geo-techincal challenges to a West Coast pipeline, most of the mountain area's would be inaccessible in winter. Any pipeline would have to cross significant Salmon bearing rivers, a spill on those rivers would be devastating to the stocks. Pipeline construction has improved considerable since even when I started, Horizontal directional drilling has become far more successful and reduces risks considerable. But a risk still remains not to mention earthquakes. There is just not a lot of confidence in either the company to fulfill it's promises or the government to ensure it does.

   

Pine River Oil Spill

Incident occurred on the Pine River, about 110 km upstream of the community of Chetwynd. The Pine River flows into the Peace River.

Time and Date of Incident

August 1, 2000 - 01:20 hours

Product/Quantity Spilled 1

Light crude oil — approximately 985 cubic metres (6200 barrels)

Cause of Spill

A pipeline transporting oil from Taylor to Kamloops ruptured.

Environmental Setting and Impacts

The environmental impact included mortality to fish, insects and some wildlife. The river water supply to the District of Chetwynd was shut off and the use of many groundwater wells near the river was discontinued.

Response Participants

Responsible Party 2

    Pembina Pipeline Corporation

Lead Agencies 3

    Provincial: Ministry of Environment, Oil and Gas Commission
    First Nations: Saulteau First Nations

Primary Participating Contractors and other Agencies

    Alpine Environmental Ltd.
    Provincial Emergency Program (PEP)
    District of Chetwynd
    Environment Canada

Response Summary/Closure

The spill response was managed by Pembina Pipeline Corporation. This spill was one of the most expensive inland pipeline oil spill in Canadian history. The company has spent over $30,000,000 and the local government and provincial agencies were also heavily impacted. The product recovery rate was high: 450 m3 removed from the river, 415 m3 removed in contaminated soil and about 80 m3 spread throughout the environment.