Oil Tankers, Tar Sands in Burrard Inlet

18 posts / 0 new

Fri, 2011-06-10 19:00

Noah_Scape

Quote: "Vancouver, the "greenest city in the world," may quietly become the main tanker route for oil sands crude bound for China."

- end quote

Last summer there were big protests, especially by BC First Nations, about the proposal to build The Gateway pipeline from the Ft. MacMurray Tar Sands to the BC coast at Kitmat, right through the BC interior wildlands.

The plans seem to have been shelved for now, there is too much opposition.

So, what does the BC government do? They allow the oil industry to try another route, even though it is obvious the public will is to reject the idea of Tar Sands crude/bitumen moving through BC.

There are a few reasons for the opposition to Tar Sands moving through BC:

1] it will increase OIL TANKER traffic on BC's coast

2] the pipeline could leak and make a big mess

3] it facilitates Tar Sands EXPANSION [there are plans to "more than double" the size of that mistake in Fort MacMurray] by opening up a new market, in China, for Tar Sands bitumen.

This new route for Tar Sands is actually a proposal to expand an existing pipeline route through the southern part of BC.

Tanker traffic in Burrard Inlet would grow from the current maximum 70,000 bpd [barrels per day] to 450,000 bpd. - a substantial increase in the risk of a spill.

So, why is it not in the public spotlight a Tyee article asks:

Quote: All of this is happening with remarkably little scrutiny or even awareness in the Lower Mainland. Of the 18 legal interveners in Kinder Morgan's application, 17 are oil companies and one is from the Alberta government.

The B.C. government specifically declined to be involved in the decision that would greatly scale up tanker traffic off our coast, through our largest city. No environmental or public interest groups applied to be involved in the NEB application.

> http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/06/02/KinderMorganGrandPlan/

---

The Gateway pipeline protest was covered in this thread: http://rabble.ca/babble/activism/gateway-pipeline-protest

Sat, 2011-06-11 12:50

Roscoe

Are you planning a new thread for every media article you find? How about keeping this all together in one thread like the Petition one you started last week?

A little continuity will help for the few of us that actually respond. A proliferation of three post threads does nothing to create interest in the subject.

Sat, 2011-06-11 13:05

Roscoe

The TransMountain Pipeline to the Lower Mainland supplies BC refineries and Washington state refineries with crude as well as exporting oil via tanker. It has been doing so for 50 - 60 years.

Tanker exports were mostly to California but lately, exports to Asia are increasing. OPEC states that global crude demand will exceed supply in 2012, mostly from emerging economies. Depletion in the global supply of light, sweet crude is accelerating and much of the crude that is replacing it will be heavy crude, heavier than Alberta's.

Make no mistake. Alberta's (and Saskatchewan's) heavy crude will have a global appeal. The need to finance Canadian public services and entitlements will find oil export favour with governments. It makes sense to plan the optimal method to move crude rather than finding the political compromise method based on the usual chicanery.

Exports of oil via tanker through the TMP and Port of Vancouver have been ongoing for over half a century and will be difficult to halt. Finding a better method should be undertaken.

Sat, 2011-06-11 13:42

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

How about a novel idea. Reduce the burning of fossil fuels by not increasing our production of either shale gas or tar sands oil. Lets spend all those billions on green solutions that after we develop can be sold to other countries.

That way we get better air and better jobs and fewer oil spills in my backyard. Currently the oil companies get rich and we all get oil spills and run away climate change. All for a few pieces of silver.

Sat, 2011-06-11 18:07

Noah_Scape

Roscoe wrote:

Are you planning a new thread for every media article you find? How about keeping this all together in one thread like the Petition one you started last week?

A little continuity will help for the few of us that actually respond. A proliferation of three post threads does nothing to create interest in the subject.

Sat, 2011-06-11 18:09

Noah_Scape

My apologies, mods. I actually did a search on "Gateway" and only found the "Protest" from a year ago. Apparently I started TWO others and don't even remember. Maybe I should take a break until I feel better, I am really fading fast if I can't even remember that.

Sat, 2011-06-11 18:21

Noah_Scape

Noah_Scape wrote:

My apologies, mods. I actually did a search on "Gateway" and only found the "Protest" from a year ago. Apparently I started TWO others and don't even remember. Maybe I should take a break until I feel better, I am really fading fast if I can't even remember that.

Later, after more searching:

http://rabble.ca/babble/activism/no-oil-tankers-bc-petition

Oh, THAT thread!

Nobody had replied to it since Dec 2010 until you ]Roscoe] and epaulo both replied on June 2nd 2011... But you see, THAT one is about the Gateway pipeline, whereas this thread is about a NEW ROUTE altogether, quietly being implemented. I suppose it could be the same topic, ya, I see that.

I am not denying the problem of "thread proliferation" though, I will try to do better in the future. Thanks for your help.

Sun, 2011-06-12 17:12

Roscoe

Northern Shoveler wrote:

How about a novel idea. Reduce the burning of fossil fuels by not increasing our production of either shale gas or tar sands oil. Lets spend all those billions on green solutions that after we develop can be sold to other countries.

That way we get better air and better jobs and fewer oil spills in my backyard. Currently the oil companies get rich and we all get oil spills and run away climate change. All for a few pieces of silver.

Reducing the burning of fossil fuels without viable alternatives will result in much less food production globally. Returning to human powered food production will certainly rid the world of that pesky unemployment thing.

Its not a novel idea but it is an idea that is at odds with global oil demand. Changing that demand dynamic will be quite difficult. Forcing consumers to pay a large carbon tax on discretionary items such as computers and electronic toys is one thing but forcing the fixed income folks to lower their thermostats to +5 in a northern winter is quite another. What do the folks who cannot afford to live in a high cost urban environment but are employed there do for transport?

Transportation fuels are the largest demand segment. Stopping unnecessary human travel ( which is almost all travel in the age of teleconferencing) is possible but transport of goods is necessary to sustain life. No Chilean grapes, valencia oranges or European cheeses until the turnips and cabbage runs out?

Sun, 2011-06-12 17:15

Roscoe

Noah_Scape wrote:

Noah_Scape wrote:

My apologies, mods. I actually did a search on "Gateway" and only found the "Protest" from a year ago. Apparently I started TWO others and don't even remember. Maybe I should take a break until I feel better, I am really fading fast if I can't even remember that.

Later, after more searching:

http://rabble.ca/babble/activism/no-oil-tankers-bc-petition

Oh, THAT thread!

Nobody had replied to it since Dec 2010 until you ]Roscoe] and epaulo both replied on June 2nd 2011... But you see, THAT one is about the Gateway pipeline, whereas this thread is about a NEW ROUTE altogether, quietly being implemented. I suppose it could be the same topic, ya, I see that.

I am not denying the problem of "thread proliferation" though, I will try to do better in the future. Thanks for your help.

I didn't notice the staledate. The Kinder Morgan proposal is a radical undertaking in such a busy waterway. Thier previous exports have flown under the wire because they were relatively small but attempting to bring VLCCs into the Port of Vancouver seems foolhardy.

Mon, 2011-06-13 11:18

#10

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Quote:
Reducing the burning of fossil fuels without viable alternatives will result in much less food production globally.

Capping the use of fossil fuels will create viable alternatives, including a re-engineering of local food production and consumption, and a shift to more economical means of transportation (improved rail as an alternative to air, etc.).

Mon, 2011-06-13 13:50

#11

epaulo13

Environmental activism needs its own revolution to regain its teeth

Today's protest tactics are not sufficient to alter the destructive path travelled by virtually all governments and most corporations

Charles Secrett Monday 13 June 2011 16.58 BST

Forty years ago, Friends of the Earth announced its arrival in the UK with a handful of placard-waving volunteers dumping 1,500 non-returnable Schweppes bottles on the front steps of the company's head office, and demanding that government and industry set up a nationwide recycling network. The media went bonkers. The protest made front page news and the evening TV bulletins. It was the shock of the new.

Try the same trick today, and only a few passers-by would pay any attention. The media is saturated with protest. Revolution in the Middle East what's making the news, not stunts and marches in central London.

The UK environment movement has grown into a behemoth. Organisations like FoE, Greenpeace, RSPB and WWF have membership in the millions, employ thousands of intelligent staff in modern offices, and spend over £100m annually. They work hard on environment and development issues together, run information-rich websites, and endlessly lobby government and industry to green the economy and embrace sustainability....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/13/environmental-activism...

Tue, 2011-06-14 11:12

#12

Roscoe

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Quote:
Reducing the burning of fossil fuels without viable alternatives will result in much less food production globally.

Capping the use of fossil fuels will create viable alternatives, including a re-engineering of local food production and consumption, and a shift to more economical means of transportation (improved rail as an alternative to air, etc.).

Capping use and creating alternatives is not a linear progression. Employing emerging technology to limit the negative effects of fossil fuels and furthur the creation of viable alternatives will transition energy useage toward sustainability goals.

Changes toward local food production and mass transit (and energy utilisation) will occur when the benefits outweigh the costs. Its coming a lot sooner than many people expect. Year-round access to plentiful imported foodstuffs will soon be too expensive for the average individual and the ubran sprawl that hinders cost-effective mass transit will be reduced into higher population densities because the lower cost of living that inspired urban sprawl will be negated by rising energy costs.

Driving 30 miles or more to work and heating a large home with attached garage along with driving the yard apes all over the land for activities will be prohibitively expensive.

Tue, 2011-06-14 13:38

#13

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

You recognise the future, but ignore the requirement to get there without a massive disruption to our economy. The only reasonable way to finance the transition to a high density, mass transit, local food production lifestyle is through royalties or taxation on the profits from non-renewable natural resources - particularly the carbon-intensive ones that cause climate change. Small changes that advance the day when "the benefits outweigh the costs" will ease the pain of such re-modelling, and allow for proper planning to take place.

Wed, 2011-06-15 15:56

#14

Noah_Scape

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Quote:
Reducing the burning of fossil fuels without viable alternatives will result in much less food production globally.

Capping the use of fossil fuels will create viable alternatives, including a re-engineering of local food production and consumption, and a shift to more economical means of transportation (improved rail as an alternative to air, etc.).

A twist on that issue is that "due to climate change - floods and drought - 25% of Canada's croplands will go unplanted this year", and that will cause food prices to rise. The point is that by reducing CO2 emissions by embracing renewable energy there will be less pressure on food prices due to bad weather, which "offsets" the cost of transitioning away from fossil fuels.

We just have to do it. The costs will be the costs, and I really believe that it won't take more than 10 years to actually find we have LESS EXPENSIVE energy when we are 50% renewables [due to the long-term savings of wind and solar - "pay for it ONCE, and then it is FREE".

Wed, 2011-06-15 20:21

#15

Roscoe

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

You recognise the future, but ignore the requirement to get there without a massive disruption to our economy. The only reasonable way to finance the transition to a high density, mass transit, local food production lifestyle is through royalties or taxation on the profits from non-renewable natural resources - particularly the carbon-intensive ones that cause climate change. Small changes that advance the day when "the benefits outweigh the costs" will ease the pain of such re-modelling, and allow for proper planning to take place.

I'm not ignoring it, just not addressing it directly yet. The problems with subsidising renewables or investing scarce tax dollars into mass transit to nowhere is that until the public embraces these initiatives, they will remain 'white elephants', or stranded projects. The problem with much of the urban sprawl or semi-rural residential areas is that they don't have the density to support mass transit.

Today, people do not want to turn their lot into a vegetable garden, take the loser cruiser or park and ride because they don't have to. When energy costs force a change in this lifestyle, then gardening, local food production, home power generation via net metering and mass transit will become acceptable.

Thu, 2011-06-16 06:49

#16

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

"Mass transit to nowhere" only exists where the right sabotages common sense. Many Canadian cities, mine included, are desperate for effective mass transit, and are decades behind building its infrastructure. Toronto, for example, is half a century behind counterparts like Chicago or Montreal - and about to lose another decade to right-wing Mayor Rob Ford's tampering with/sabotage of the Transit City plan - previously approved and funded by all levels of government.

Sat, 2011-07-02 22:15

#17

Noah_Scape

Here is an update on the Dogwood groups efforts to keep oil tanker traffic to a minimum on BC's coastline, and a petition to sign if you so desire:

http://tinyurl.com/3pmwae7

Tue, 2012-02-21 22:49

#18

epaulo13

Another pipeline debate kicks off as Kinder Morgan lines up shippers

Oil producers have thrown their support behind the proposed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion to the West Coast, but the latest project aimed at providing much-needed shipping capacity for the oil sands industry now faces regulatory hurdles and growing resistance to pipelines.

Kinder Morgan Inc. $3.8-billion plan to double the amount of oil it can move from Alberta to the Pacific has garnered “strong” support from shippers and the company will now carry on with engineering and planning, it said Tuesday.

The momentum means the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion will attract greater scrutiny – something it has largely avoided as local communities and environmental groups turned Enbridge Inc.’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline into an international debate. The federal government supports greater access to the West Coast, but arm’s-length regulators must deliver their verdicts before the projects can proceed....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/another-pipeline-debate-ki...