# NDP introducing bill to ban tankers off BC coast



## CougarKing (25 Sep 2014)

The NDP and their provincial counterparts continue with the fear-mongering about oil tankers:

Global BC



> *NDP introduces bill to ban supertankers off B.C’s coast*
> 
> By Amy Judd   Global News
> 
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (25 Sep 2014)

Follow it up with a ban on gas stations too!  Ain't life grand in the opposition?


----------



## George Wallace (25 Sep 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Follow it up with a ban on gas stations too!  Ain't life grand in the opposition?



Yup!  Life must really be idyllic in that alternate universe that they live in.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Sep 2014)

Nathan Cullen is not an idiot and I have dealt with him when he has called us in the past re concerns with his constituents including resource industry. There is a voluntary offset zone off the coast of BC that the Supertankers take, based on the drift rates of the tankers and the time it will take a Rescue tug to reach them.  
Have not read this bill but it's likely aimed directly at Endbridge. I doubt it will cover LNG carriers as even the NDP knows that it will need that revenue if they get in here. There is already tanker traffic on this coast and in and out of Vancouver Harbour.


----------



## Privateer (25 Sep 2014)

It's Bill C-628.  Full text as at First Reading is here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6699473&File=24#1

The bill targets oil tankers only.

I live in BC, and I think that there would be much popular support for such a bill.  A common opinion is that the risk posed by even one oil tanker accident is so severe to the environment and the associated communities and industries, that no acceptable level of "risk mitigation" can be achieved.  The _Exxon Valdez_ and _Queen of the North_ incidents are still fresh in the minds of people in BC.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Sep 2014)

As all tankers since the Exxon Valdez spill are required to be double hulled, the possibilities of spills have been drastically reduced.


----------



## Privateer (25 Sep 2014)

Yes, but "drastically reduced" isn't enough for many people, recognizing that the effect of a spill could be catastrophic.


----------



## Journeyman (25 Sep 2014)

Privateer said:
			
		

> ..... A common opinion is that the risk posed by even one oil tanker accident is so severe to the environment....


It wasn't tabled as an environmental bill, but as "part of his party’s plan for the country’s energy future."  

Insisting that oil moves only via pipelines,*** but only after considering the extent to which the pipeline is expected to have an impact on employment in upgraders, refineries and petrochemical complexes within Canada" [ <---economic impact, not environmental]   ....and then, only after 
"consultations have taken place between the Government of Canada and all provincial, territorial, municipal and First Nations governments whose lands or waters will be affected by the pipeline and take into account the position of those governments on the issuance of a certificate in respect of the pipeline.  (including a "summary of those positions and specify how the Board took _each_ position into account") 

 .....it's obvious that the NDP energy "plan" is for nothing to get accomplished.


*** - Unless of course, you live on the coast, which is apparently the most at-risk location of a ship-borne oil spill, then the Bill specifies "it is prohibited to transport oil in an oil tanker in the areas of the sea adjacent to the coast; the prohibition does not apply in to "oil that is intended for use in coastal and island communities in Canada."


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Sep 2014)

If the LNG moves ahead, BC does not need the oil export. The LNG will provide more jobs at less risk and more revenue to the BC Government. The risks are mostly on BC part and the revenue is most in Alberta. Do you think it would be different if the roles were reversed?


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Sep 2014)

The bill is aimed squarely at Enbridge in that it says nothing about movements off of Vancouver Island and the Juan de Fuca.

What this means is that Vancouver Harbour is going to see more tankers and more congestion will occur in the Straits..... thus more risk of collision....

On to another point....

So the NDP recognize native property rights but they don't recognize my property rights?
The NDP is quite at peace with expropriating that which I possess but do not own but will not do that to the natives?

What the PUCK?

Time to get my check book out again - Uncle Steve is still the least of three evils.  

Preamble



> Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the duty of the Crown to _*obtain prior consent from First Nations*_ affected by resource development projects on their territories;



Text



> (2.1) Before submitting a report under subsection (1), the Board shall_* ensure that consultations have taken place between the Government of Canada*_ and all provincial, territorial, municipal _*and First Nations governments whose lands or waters will be affected by the pipeline and take into account the position of those governments *_on the issuance of a certificate in respect of the pipeline. The report shall include a summary of those positions and specify how the Board took each position into account in deciding whether or not to recommend the issuance of a certificate in respect of the pipeline



I sense cake being eaten and not disappearing here.

Which is it?  The Natives get a veto denied to everybody else?  Or will they just be consulted the way they are just now?

My sense of the amendments are that they wouldn't prevent an NDP government issuing the same permits they are complaining about the Conservatives issuing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Sep 2014)

I _*think*_, with only one reading of it, that the bill is poor policy but very good politics. I can see no real downside for the NDP and it will, quite likely, force young M. Trudeau's hand.


----------



## Privateer (25 Sep 2014)

The bill would affect Northern Gateway (with the planned terminal in Kitimat), which Mr. Trudeau has already said he does not support.  Note that the bill would not affect oil tankers servicing the Kinder Morgan terminal in Burnaby (next to Vancouver).  I do not know whether the portion of the bill addressing NEB procedure would effect the extant application of Kinder Morgan for its upgrade.  It is my understanding that Mr. Trudeau agrees in principle with the Kinder Morgan upgrade, if it is done in a suitable manner.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Sep 2014)

LNG tankers are safe. If they get holed (unlikely) they just go 'pfffffffffffft' , pretty much.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/02/ngt/quillen.pdf

These people are idiots, of course, because their traditional support group (workers in heavy industry) stand to gain a lot from increased tanker traffic.

If they're gunning for the 'youth vote' on a environmental platform they are doomed, because young people don't vote.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Sep 2014)

While agreeing with Privateer, I still think M. Trudeau is a, probably the target. He's gotten, essentially, a free ride on pipelines. He went to Alberta in 2013 and said, roughly: "I'm for pipelines, I'm just against _Northern Gateway_ because it's Stephen Harper's favourite pipeline." I think the NDP wants to force him into taking real positions which will, of necessity, be contradictory. The Conservatives don't care about this, they are 100% opposed, point by point, line by line, and nothing will change them.

The works for both the provincial and federal NDP.


----------



## Rifleman62 (25 Sep 2014)

We could ban all petroleum exports entirely, the see how Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick et al likes the loss of huge annual equalization payments.


----------



## Ostrozac (26 Sep 2014)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> We could ban all petroleum exports entirely, the see how Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick et al likes the loss of huge annual equalization payments.



Add to that that Quebec and New Brunswick are already heavily dependant on oil tankers in the waters off their major cities. That's how oil gets from the international market to the refineries in Montreal and Saint John.

Is oil being imported by boat somehow safer or more environmentally friendly than oil being exported by boat?


----------



## Journeyman (26 Sep 2014)

It's all about the headlines.  When (not if) the bill is defeated, they'll read "Harper hates environment /natives having 'voice' /BC...."   :boring:


----------



## dimsum (26 Sep 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> It's all about the headlines.  When (not if) the bill is defeated, they'll read "Harper hates environment /natives having 'voice' /BC...."   :boring:



Yep.  I'll even save your post so I can trot it out when it happens.


----------



## Journeyman (26 Sep 2014)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Yep.  I'll even save your post so I can trot it out when it happens.


Like I need help patting myself on the back.....    ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Sep 2014)

They're reporting on radio this morning that all the uncertainty with respect to pipelines is having a detrimental effect in Alberta.  Two major multi-billion dollar upgrader projects for the oil sands have been shelved for the foreseeable future.  The Greens, at the very least, must be estatic.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Sep 2014)

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!


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Sep 2014)

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!




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.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Sep 2014)

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.



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)
> 
> ...


*

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

*


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Sep 2014)

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.



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.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Sep 2014)

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.



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!


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Sep 2014)

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.



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.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Sep 2014)

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.


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Sep 2014)

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.


----------



## Privateer (26 Sep 2014)

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.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Sep 2014)

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?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (26 Sep 2014)

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?



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.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Sep 2014)

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.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Sep 2014)

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?



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.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Sep 2014)

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.  >


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Sep 2014)

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.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (29 Sep 2014)

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.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Sep 2014)

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


----------



## Rocky Mountains (30 Sep 2014)

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.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Sep 2014)

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.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Sep 2014)

Colin - more bodies required suggests more moving pieces and more options for things to go wrong.

LNG Process







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


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Sep 2014)

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 (30 Sep 2014)

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 (30 Sep 2014)

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 (30 Sep 2014)

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 (6 Oct 2014)

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
> ...



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 (6 Oct 2014)

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 (6 Oct 2014)

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.


----------

