# Federal Goverment's Kinder Morgan pipeline purchase



## Altair (29 May 2018)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-trans-mountain-pipeline-kinder-morgan-1.4681911


> The Liberal government will buy the Trans Mountain pipeline and infrastructure related to the expansion project for $4.5 billion.
> 
> Finance Minister Bill Morneau is announcing details of the agreement reached with Kinder Morgan at a news conference with Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr at the National Press Theatre in Ottawa
> 
> ...



I would imagine that they don't want this to fail if they are the owners of the project.

That said, this isn't the ideal way to get infrastructure projects built in Canada, but still better than letting it fail


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 May 2018)

Why is it that every time there is a Trudeau as Prime Minister, the Federal Government decides to buy into the oil industry? Is it genetic?

We would never be in this mess had the Liberals not caved to the Mayor of Montreal on Energy East and submarined the North Coast First Nations by killing Northern Gateway.


----------



## Altair (29 May 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Why is it that every time there is a Trudeau as Prime Minister, the Federal Government decides to buy into the oil industry? Is it genetic?
> 
> *We would never be in this mess had the Liberals not caved to the Mayor of Montreal on Energy East and submarined the North Coast First Nations by killing Northern Gateway.*


I think pipeline protesters would have shown up at all 3.

I'm sure Quebec and maybe ontario would have been putting up legal challenge after legal challenge.

I'm sure Horgan in BC would fight both pipelines, not only one.

So I'm not sure about that statement of yours.

That said, interesting position the government is in. Going to be hit on the right for nationalizing a pipeline, hit on the left for building a pipeline. Potential for this to be a step of government to do all that it can to help it through, or to be one of the worst boondoggles in history.


----------



## Lumber (29 May 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> That said, interesting position the government is in. Going to be hit on the right for nationalizing a pipeline, hit on the left for building a pipeline. Potential for this to be a step of government to do all that it can to help it through, or to be one of the worst boondoggles in history.



I'm torn about the reaction of the right. On the one hand, I don't think they will truly care, at this point, that we are nationalizing the pipeline; they will be happy that we are getting it done. On the other hand, the fact that the LPC are the ones getting it done might mute their response; don't expect any good job-pat on the backs from the right wight. 

The thing about the left wing... nromally I'd say, "well, duh!" of course they will will be unhappy with a pipeline, but it's hard because, isn't the LPC left wing now?


----------



## Altair (29 May 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I'm torn about the reaction of the right. On the one hand, I don't think they will truly care, at this point, that we are nationalizing the pipeline; they will be happy that we are getting it done. On the other hand, the fact that the LPC are the ones getting it done might mute their response; don't expect any good job-pat on the backs from the right wight.
> 
> The thing about the left wing... nromally I'd say, "well, duh!" of course they will will be unhappy with a pipeline, but it's hard because, isn't the LPC left wing now?


Yeah, I will be interested in the response from the right, because of the support of pipelines in the conservative heartland. Will they care that it took nationalization to get it done, or will the ideological purists still protest it?

As for the left, the eco radicals don't care about party. The union left will love it though, another crown corporation in the making.


----------



## Infanteer (29 May 2018)

Left or right is irrelevant for me.  I'm pleased to see the government is doing its job in seeing this through.


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 May 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Left or right is irrelevant for me.  I'm pleased to see the government is doing its job in seeing this through.



And, hopefully, one of the things that will be 'through' as a result is the stoopid NDP-Green co-government in BC.


----------



## Cloud Cover (29 May 2018)

How much unspent budget will DND be handing back over the next 4 years. Thats how they can pay for it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 May 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-trans-mountain-pipeline-kinder-morgan-1.4681911
> I would imagine that they don't want this to fail if they are the owners of the project.
> 
> That said, this isn't the ideal way to get infrastructure projects built in Canada, but still better than letting it fail


 
This will be pipeline building in South West BC  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djzRWIhiD00&t=149s   :rofl:


----------



## Loachman (29 May 2018)

"Veterans are asking for more than we can afford."

"Hey - let's blow billions of tax dollars to build a pipeline that would have been built with private money had we done our jobs right."

And what's the effect on other investors considering the wisdom of major projects in Canada going to be? Not very positive, I imagine.

I am glad that it now stands a somewhat better chance of being built than it did a couple of days ago (but am still not confident that it will be built, and much less so that it will be efficiently and economically built), but this rivals the Sea King replacement and Firearms Act as a monument to Liberal incompetence, stupidity, and waste.

I just hope that those who will/may build and operate it are not paid via Phoenix...


----------



## Loachman (29 May 2018)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pipeline-morneau-nationalize-1.4682199

Taxpayers will foot the _*$4.5 billion*_ purchase price. That sum doesn't include what could be billions of dollars in construction costs, or the costs of cleaning up a spill - although Morneau said Alberta's government will share the cost of any unexpected or emergency cost overruns.

And _*there are no guarantees that the pipeline will return the investment when (and if) a buyer can be found sometime in the future*_ — that selling the line will fetch an asking price that realizes the full value of the public money being invested.

Morneau said many private sector investors expressed interest in the project, though _*he failed to explain why none of them were prepared to take the same risk with shareholders' money he's taking with taxpayers' money*_, given the staunch public opposition and ongoing protests against the project at the pipeline's terminus in Burnaby, B.C.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-trans-mountain-pipeline-kinder-morgan-1.4681911

"Canadian public could also incur millions to construct expansion project with estimated price tag of $7.4B"

I misspoke when I used the term "rivals" in my last post.

I should have said "dwarves".

I really cannot see this ending well for anybody.


----------



## Altair (29 May 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pipeline-morneau-nationalize-1.4682199
> 
> Taxpayers will foot the _*$4.5 billion*_ purchase price. That sum doesn't include what could be billions of dollars in construction costs, or the costs of cleaning up a spill - although Morneau said Alberta's government will share the cost of any unexpected or emergency cost overruns.
> 
> ...


At least it gets built. 

The increases exports of oil at market prices will bring in billions more in royalties alone.


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 May 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> At least it gets built.
> 
> The increases exports of oil at market prices will bring in billions more in royalties alone.



It's not built yet.  I'll hurrah when it is.


----------



## Altair (29 May 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It's not built yet.  I'll hurrah when it is.


Can I hold you to this?


----------



## Loachman (29 May 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> At least it gets built.



Maybe.

It would have a better chance of being built - and at no risk to the people of Canada - had this government done its job instead of just mouthing platitudes.


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 May 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Can I hold you to this?



If l haven't died of old age, sure.


----------



## larry Strong (29 May 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Maybe.
> 
> It would have a better chance of being built - and at no risk to the people of Canada - had this government done its job instead of just mouthing platitudes.



Why does everyone feel that just because the LPC bought the pipeline that all is well and it will be built???


I don't see the enviro nuts giving up the good fight just because it's now owned by them as opposed to Kinder Morgan....


Now where near getting this built.........



Cheers
Larry


----------



## Loachman (29 May 2018)

Good deal for Kinder Morgan, though, getting paid to not build a pipeline.

In a couple of decades, somebody's hair will be neither as nice or as abundant.

And he won't be anymore ready.


----------



## ModlrMike (29 May 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I'm torn about the reaction of the right. On the one hand, I don't think they will truly care, at this point, that we are nationalizing the pipeline; they will be happy that we are getting it done. On the other hand, the fact that the LPC are the ones getting it done might mute their response; don't expect any good job-pat on the backs from the right wight.
> 
> The thing about the left wing... nromally I'd say, "well, duh!" of course they will will be unhappy with a pipeline, but it's hard because, isn't the LPC left wing now?



Past performance on this file does not guarantee that anything will get done, rather that it won't. The only thing that's guaranteed is that we own the beast now.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (29 May 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Good deal for Kinder Morgan, though, getting paid to not build a pipeline.
> 
> In a couple of decades, somebody's hair will be neither as nice or as abundant.
> 
> And he won't be anymore ready.



Notwithstanding your thinly disguised and all too predictable personal attack on the PM, what do you think the Government should have done?


----------



## Furniture (29 May 2018)

If the pipeline is built, and at a not unreasonable expense (given it's going to be government built), I will give the current Liberal government it's due praise. 

 I believe the PM should have used more of his "social license" to push it in the political arena before having to make it a government project. I'm fairly certain I know why they didn't, but I think the repercussions from the green left will be just as severe as if they had pushed politically via legislation. The right leaning voters now resent the government for making it a nationalized asset, and the green left will despise them for building/attempting another pipeline.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 May 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Notwithstanding your thinly disguised and all too predictable personal attack on the PM, what do you think the Government should have done?




In fact this is, arguably, the least bad course of action open ... but this government ended up in a corner because of their own ill considered political choices in 2015, 2016 and 2017 as they tried to appease too many constituencies at the expense of the national interest.

Sort of doing the right (at least not terribly wrong) thing for all the wrong reasons ...


Edit: to dd "thing" in last sentence  ???


----------



## Retired AF Guy (29 May 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pipeline-morneau-nationalize-1.4682199
> 
> Taxpayers will foot the _*$4.5 billion*_ purchase price. That sum doesn't include what could be billions of dollars in construction costs, or the costs of cleaning up a spill - although Morneau said Alberta's government will share the cost of any unexpected or emergency cost overruns.
> 
> ...



Chump change. After all, in 2009 the federal and Ontario governments provided $13.7 billion to the auto sector and only recovered something like $5.4 billion from the sale of shares. 

And, I don't remember the left complaining about it when it happened.


----------



## Cloud Cover (29 May 2018)

There's nothing wrong with a government being responsive to logical and responsible concerns raised by constituents and other levels of government, but in this case those concerns are barely visible but nor are they invisible or ill founded (environmentally).  Prime Minister St. Laurent built many, many great projects by ramming them through, which however necessary for the good of the country, might not have been the best course of action.   My **guess** is that it is difficult to govern anymore in this day and age, the process of governing fits with very little sensible reasoning in the age of hyper speed reactivity.  

Was this a situation of Mortons Fork,  Hobsons Choice or Buridans Ass for the feds? Discuss.


----------



## PuckChaser (29 May 2018)

If there is an issue with a post, there is a report to moderator function. Quoting the post and then quoting rules only accomplishes causing a larger argument and degrading adult discussion and could also be considered trolling.

Allow us to do our jobs to police the tone and content of threads and allow continued intelligent debate.

- Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 May 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Notwithstanding your thinly disguised and all too predictable personal attack on the PM, what do you think the Government should have done?



How about not vilifying the oil industry for the past two years?

How about not squibbing two other pipeline projects (Energy East and Northern Gateway)?

How about not walking around babbling about "social license" and instead, upholding the rule of law?

Most (but not all) First Nations on the Transmountain route are onboard. Want make it politically unpalatable for the pipeline opponents to oppose the project? Make the First Nations in question equity partners in the deal.


----------



## ModlrMike (30 May 2018)

There's a widely held belief in BC that environmentalists have been a driving force in FN poverty. The irony of having FN on board the KM project would be epic!


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 May 2018)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> There's a widely held belief in BC that environmentalists have been a driving force in FN poverty. The irony of having FN on board the KM project would be epic!



Fortunately, we don't hear too much about this First Nations led effort to save BC & Canada from itself:

First Nations pipeline has a plan to get around B.C. oil tanker ban — an old gold-rush town in Alaska
http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/first-nations-pipeline-has-a-plan-to-get-around-b-c-oil-tanker-ban-an-old-gold-rush-town-in-alaska


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (30 May 2018)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In fact this is, arguably, the least bad course of action open ... but this government ended up in a corner because of their own ill considered political choices in 2015, 2016 and 2017 as they tried to appease too many constituencies at the expense of the national interest.
> 
> Sort of doing the right (at least not terribly wrong) for all the wrong reasons ...



Quite right, E.R.C.

For me, this is just the Federal Liberals yet again using billions of taxpayer dollars to get themselves out of a corner into which they willfully painted themselves to start with. If it ever manages to pay for itself and make us money, I'll gladly eat my words - but nothing in the way Governments have run what are basically business interests in the past gives me the warm and fuzzier at this point.


----------



## ModlrMike (30 May 2018)

Just so I understand the situation... we bought a pipeline at the same time as we have a tanker ban before parliament?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 May 2018)

Both sides could have done better, the CPC made massive changes to legislation with little consultations and not a lot of thought into the wording, making the decisions based on them, worthy of court challenges. Had they done a bit less and consulted more, there would have been less ground for opponents to stand on. The Liberals campaigned on how they were going to "protect the environment" and reverse those legislative changes, yet are fully supporting a project reviewed and approved under those changes, so massive hypocrite be them. Beyond the protests, thee are some legit concerns, mainly getting tankers through the 2 narrows and under the rail lift span, which is already a problem area for intermodel conflicts, soon to be made worse by Saudi owned G3 grain terminals. The current pipeline provides 40% of the feedstock for the main refinery, hopefully they can push through more feedstock and refined product, reducing our dependency on the US refineries.


----------



## Cloud Cover (30 May 2018)

ERC it seems Andrew Coyne agrees: http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/liberals-took-only-possible-route-out-of-mess-they-created/amp


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 May 2018)

The BC NDP also painted themselves into a corner.  Opposing the pipeline is the "win" they are trying to preserve for the no-compromise environmentalists in general and the Greens in particular, after having given over some "losses" - site C dam go-ahead, bridge toll removals, support for natural gas infrastructure.

At both levels (fed and prov), purely political concerns drove the early moves which positioned the parties where they are now.  Not much "rational", "evidence-driven", "reality-based" technocracy at work.  Just "what-must-I-do-today-to-drift-with-the-wind".

Conservatives are having their cake and eating it on this one.  Support for the government undertaking to get the pipeline built; criticism for the government reducing its options to nationalization.

The government can turn a profit on this, but only if it operates the pipeline as a crown corporation for long enough.  I can't see any other party stepping up to buy it until all the legal uncertainties have been removed, and I can't believe that will be true until well after the deal is complete and construction is continuing.


----------



## Altair (30 May 2018)

Before this week it has been "protect our jobs! "

This week "not like that! "


----------



## PuckChaser (30 May 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Before this week it has been "protect our jobs! "
> 
> This week "not like that! "



What protected jobs? Last I saw the pipeline is still under legal challenge and locked down by protesters flaunting court orders. The only way to truly get the pipeline built was invoking Sect 92(10) of the British North America Act. The Liberal government has failed to do that, and has now saddled us with a $4.5B CAD project in which the government should only have a hand in approving, not running. 

Nobody is buying the spin, this is a bad deal for Canada. Its the Gas Plant scandal times at least 4.5.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 May 2018)

But it is a no-Wyn situation.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 May 2018)

Why don't they deploy a bunch of cops in riot gear and arrest the law breakers?


----------



## Altair (30 May 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> What protected jobs? Last I saw the pipeline is still under legal challenge and locked down by protesters flaunting court orders. The only way to truly get the pipeline built was invoking Sect 92(10) of the British North America Act. The Liberal government has failed to do that, and has now saddled us with a $4.5B CAD project in which the government should only have a hand in approving, not running.
> 
> Nobody is buying the spin, this is a bad deal for Canada. Its the Gas Plant scandal times at least 4.5.


Spin. Heh. 

Everyone would have been up in arms had this pipeline died,  people accused the liberal government of wanting it to die,  the government outright buys the the darn thing,  and now they are doing a bad deal. 

Its amazing.  They will never win,  its amazing that they try.


----------



## PuckChaser (30 May 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Spin. Heh.
> 
> Everyone would have been up in arms had this pipeline died,  people accused the liberal government of wanting it to die,  the government outright buys the the darn thing,  and now they are doing a bad deal.
> 
> Its amazing.  They will never win,  its amazing that they try.



I think your judgement is clouded. In what world is a government owned pipeline good? How's all that government owned oil working for Venezuela? You even said months ago the easy solution was for 92(10) to be used and it would solve all these problems. Instead, the federal government now owns a political and financially risky billion dollar pipeline with legislation from their own party pushing for an oil tanker ban on the area for the outlet of said pipeline. 

If Trudeau had used 92(10) months ago, I would have told you that it was a good call and we could move on with our day. In buying the pipeline, he tried to straddle the perfect middle road: delaying conflict with the environmentalists he courts for votes, and placating the party faithful that will claim he's moving an important economic project forward. I just can't wait for the Question Period where this whole mess is somehow the Harper government's fault.


----------



## Altair (30 May 2018)

Is it good?  No. 

Is it the disaster people are making it out to be?  No.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 May 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Is it good?  No.
> 
> Is it the disaster people are making it out to be?  No.



Not yet.  Maybe never, maybe it will be.  Too soon to call, not that it really matters as we've bought the cow now.


----------



## Altair (30 May 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Not yet.  Maybe never, maybe it will be.  Too soon to call, not that it really matters as we've bought the cow now.


exactly. Nobody knows how this will turn out. 

Could be the a great investment,  could be a multi billion dollar boondoggle,  I said that in my first post. 

A lot seem to be taking the latter position.  I really didn't expect anything else. At least people can't say they are trying their best to kill it. They own it.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 May 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> exactly. Nobody knows how this will turn out.
> 
> Could be the a great investment,  could be a multi billion dollar boondoggle,  I said that in my first post.
> 
> A lot seem to be taking the latter position.  I really didn't expect anything else. At least people can't say they are trying their best to kill it. They own it.



I would have wished it hadn't been nationalised as these affairs rarely come out well for the taxpayer.  But we've bought the cow now, hopfully her udders won't be dry or the milk sour.


----------



## Remius (31 May 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I would have wished it hadn't been nationalised as these affairs rarely come out well for the taxpayer.  But we've bought the cow now, hopfully her udders won't be dry or the milk sour.



The national post shows a few of these types of things.  

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/a-short-look-at-the-governments-long-history-of-investing-in-troubled-projects

Most of these actually turned out ok. 

If the goal is to make sure it gets up and running and the government plans to let it go after then fine, let it happen. Just glad to see some sort of action on this.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 May 2018)

There is a fairly long and, generally, favourable history of the sorts of public private partnerships (PPPs) that involve the public paying the up front capital costs to build, just for example, the Hong Kong and Singapore mass transit railway systems (subways) which are, arguably, the best in the world and infinitely superior in quality of service and profitability* to anything I have seen anywhere in Europe or America. 

There is no way that the Hong Kong MTR could have been financed and built by the private sector ~ the land use issues alone would have made that impossible: public money and government power was needed (and used) to build the first lines. Once the system was up and running it was "sold" (at a fairly modest public offering) to a new, publicly traded company which, immediately sold shares on the HKX. Today the MTR Corp is one of the most important "widows and orphans" (safe) stocks and forms part of the base of almost every HK pension plan investment portfolio because it is well managed and consistently profitable.

As a general rule large infrastructure projects can be built by anyone, including governments, but managing an "enterprise" is, almost without fail, done 'better' by a private firm than by a government. The general rules of management and accounting that apply to public sector are designed, in large part, to ensure efficient, effective, transparent (to shareholders) operations; the same rules are not used, for very good reasons, by government where other drivers ~ beyond efficiency and productivity ~ are often most important. 

If, and it's a *HUGE IF*, the feds can find suitable Canadian buyers for 'our' pipeline, ideally before they have to spend the $4.5 Billion that they're giving to KM ($1.2 B over appraised value I think I read somewhere?) _*and*_ the _guesstimated_ $7.5 Billion needed for the expansion, then we might see both a much needed pipeline expansion and a bit of a financial surplus ... if.

There are no economic reasons why this cannot work ... but there may be good reasons for Canadian entrepreneurs and investors to want nothing to do with this: *fear* of government actions. Look at _Energy East_, look at the fact that we are, simultaneously, expanding a pipeline to get (mostly) Alberta oil to tidewater and restricting tanker traffic in and out of Vancouver; why would a Canadian investor trust this government to make things work? Would you?

___
* Yes, both private subway companies make money for their shareholders, something that almost no public transit systems do in North America or Europe.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 May 2018)

So, if I have this right, the taxpayer builds the pipeline. Then, this government can sell it to recoup their costs.

Ì wonder if the PM has any friends that want to expand their oil business and then play monopoly with our supplies.

Ì wonder, if some opec country will buy it and shut off the taps in their own interest.

Why does this smell like the governments foray into PetroCan?


----------



## daftandbarmy (31 May 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Why does this smell like the governments foray into PetroCan?



Because his Dad created PetroCan?


----------



## Kirkhill (31 May 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Because his Dad created PetroCan?



From Petro Fina - which engaged his Grandad and in which his Grandma held shares?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 May 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I think your judgement is clouded. In what world is a government owned pipeline good? How's all that government owned oil working for Venezuela? You even said months ago the easy solution was for 92(10) to be used and it would solve all these problems. Instead, the federal government now owns a political and financially risky billion dollar pipeline with legislation from their own party pushing for an oil tanker ban on the area for the outlet of said pipeline.
> 
> If Trudeau had used 92(10) months ago, I would have told you that it was a good call and we could move on with our day. In buying the pipeline, he tried to straddle the perfect middle road: delaying conflict with the environmentalists he courts for votes, and placating the party faithful that will claim he's moving an important economic project forward. I just can't wait for the Question Period where this whole mess is somehow the Harper government's fault.



Not the same, Venezuela nationalized with little payout for the infrastructure and started milking the industry for every dime to pay off their friends, eventually it collapsed. Owning a pipeline, does not meaning owning the product moving through it, the product owners pay the pipeline owner to move product through the pipe. It's unclear why Canada proposes to buy the existing pipe, unless Kinder Morgan sensed an opportunity to squeeze the government by saying "both or nothing" which I am guessing is what happened. The Libs are in such a pickle they took the offer instead of walking. It's also not clear how Canada intends to manage the existing pipe or oversee the construction of the new one. I suspect they have to form a Crown Corporation in a hurry to run it. All the contracts KM had, now need to be renegotiated and if Canada runs the pipeline directly, then a whole hosts of federal regulations kick in. Plus Canada will have to try to take over the existing IBA's with the FN's who may want to tack on more demands. Plus it means if there is a spill, Canada is on the hook for the cleanup and to pay out the losses of the product owners and since we are "self-insured" that means you and me.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 May 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Fortunately, we don't hear too much about this First Nations led effort to save BC & Canada from itself:
> 
> First Nations pipeline has a plan to get around B.C. oil tanker ban — an old gold-rush town in Alaska
> http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/first-nations-pipeline-has-a-plan-to-get-around-b-c-oil-tanker-ban-an-old-gold-rush-town-in-alaska



Going "right flanking".   

Over, under, *around* or through.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 May 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Because his Dad created PetroCan?



Rhetorical question. PetroCan, Petro Fina, Power Corp and the Laurentian Elites. Oil for food scandal. All grit business in foreign oil.


----------



## Cloud Cover (31 May 2018)

Here's another question:will oil run through this pipeline fetch below market price like the way it is right now in Cushing? I happen to agree that if the oil extracted is to be refined into a non-fuel product, such as a raw material for 3D printing in China, then what are we doing exporting it as a raw resource instead of a finished product. Just asking...


----------



## Altair (31 May 2018)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Here's another question:will oil run through this pipeline fetch below market price like the way it is right now in Cushing? I happen to agree that if the oil extracted is to be refined into a non-fuel product, such as a raw material for 3D printing in China, then what are we doing exporting it as a raw resource instead of a finished product. Just asking...


its a good question. 

I think its a matter of capacity. North america is already near capacity whrnnit comes to refineries. Canada has less than 20, america 140ish. Hard to make a business deal saying that we need more refineries when some refineries are closing as it is. 

So we would need to refine it for export. 

But doing that would require to try to challenge asian refineries who can do it cheaper than we can,  especially BC with its environmental policies. 

Add to that, its hard to refine the type of oil alberta exports,  heavy oil. Looking at added costs both in initial start up costs and long term.

So its easier to export it raw and let others refine it,  but at least sell it at market price than it is to refine it then try to butt into the Asian market.


----------



## Cloud Cover (31 May 2018)

OK, but what's the problem with refining it in Alberta and using it for our own market needs. The uses for oil as I'm sure you are well aware go far beyond fuel energy. It is THE primary strategic ingredient in hardware coverings, new building materials and other products from emerging  manufacturing technologies.
It is disheartening to see that this country continues to de-industrialize and cede that space to Asia and others when we could lead.
Really, why was this not part of the backup plan of the feds?


----------



## Altair (31 May 2018)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> OK, but what's the problem with refining it in Alberta and using it for our own market needs. The uses for oil as I'm sure you are well aware go far beyond fuel energy. It is THE primary strategic ingredient in hardware coverings, new building materials and other products from emerging  manufacturing technologies.
> It is disheartening to see that this country continues to de-industrialize and cede that space to Asia and others when we could lead.
> Really, why was this not part of the backup plan of the feds?


the Canadian praries are largely self sufficient. Alberta already supplies the needs of BC,  itself,  Saskatchewan,  and Manitoba,  although I think some of this is refined in the states. 

There isn't much of a business case for refining any more oil in Canada for Canadians,  except in the central provinces. Energy east would have done the job,  but quebec,  and to some extent ontario didn't want the project. 

The fact of the matter is that western Canada refines more oil that it needs as it is.  The rest must be exported.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Jun 2018)

Actually no, BC has to import refined product, we have one 56,000bpd and one 26,000bpd refineries, not only do we have to import refined product, we also have to import feedstock from the US. Ironically a portion of the feedstock in the existing KM line is apparently diverted to the US, instead of Canada.


----------



## Altair (1 Jun 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Actually no, BC has to import refined product, we have one 56,000bpd and one 26,000bpd refineries, not only do we have to import refined product, we also have to import feedstock from the US. Ironically a portion of the feedstock in the existing KM line is apparently diverted to the US, instead of Canada.


http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/tristin-hopper-why-canada-shouldnt-refine-the-oil-it-exports

Some food for thought.



> Canada already exports more refined products than it imports
> In December 2017, Canada imported 1.4 million cubic metres of refined products while exporting 2.4 million cubic metres — meaning that Americans are burning way more of our gasoline than we’re burning of theirs. It may seem strange that Canada is simultaneously importing and exporting refined products, but keep in mind that we are essentially a one-dimensional country splayed along a 6,400 kilometre border with the United States; gas stations in Thunder Bay are generally going to have an easier time getting their fuel from Minnesota rather than Alberta. Either way, Canada’s relatively robust export market should make it clear that we have absolutely no problem refining our own oil when it is profitable to do so. As the points below will note, it’s the “profitable” part of the equation that’s the tricky part.





> Even the refineries we already have aren’t running full tilt. In 2017 Canada’s refineries only ran at 84 per cent capacity, according to the National Energy Board. The story is a bit different in Alberta, where refinery utilization impressively topped 101.5 per cent in 2017 — but that still means eastern refineries are sitting on their hands up to one fifth of the time. There’s even some wiggle room in U.S. refineries, who worked at only 91 per cent capacity in 2017. It’s for this reason that Husky Energy CEO Rob Peabody said last month that North America is effectively maxed out on refineries. What’s more needed, he said, are new pipelines to connect Alberta’s oil with some of the continent’s more underused refineries.





> Last year, Canada exported $67 billion in oil. As with prior years, most of that exported oil ended up in the United States. Pretend that, tomorrow, Canada shut off all its oil exports and informed the Americans that if they wanted our petroleum, they’d have to start ponying up for some made-in-Canada gas, diesel and kerosene. The likely result is that U.S. oil importers would give us a blank look before immediately calling one of the hundreds of other places that could sell them crude oil instead. “They’re not going to idle all of their refining capacity to suit Canada’s needs, they’re going to do what’s best for them, which is to continue to run their refineries,” said Jason Parent with Kent Group, a leading Canadian oil industry analyst. One major problem is that Canada has a pretty hard time making gasoline cheaper than anyone else. The United States is the world’s most prolific refiner of oil — and most of its refineries are already paid off. China benefits from a one-two punch of lower labour costs and lax environmental standards. Against those odds, there are only so many ways in which a brand-new Canadian refinery could expect to make competitively priced diesel and gas.





> Generally, it makes sense to refine close to market
> A refinery is a bit like a brewery: You can put it anywhere. Alaska is famous for its beer, and yet the barley and hops to make it is almost exclusively imported from abroad. Similarly, Japan’s coast is littered with refineries despite the country not having a single domestic oil well. There are a couple reasons for this. First off, refined products expire: From the time it comes out of the refinery, a litre of gasoline can have as little as a few months before it goes stale. Secondly, every market decides to use its petroleum differently. For instance, about half of the transportation fuels burned in Europe are diesel, while in the U.S. it’s as low as three per cent. The advantage of selling crude oil is that it can be sold to anyone, anywhere and at anytime. Once it gets refined, however, it turns into a perishable product with a much narrower group of people willing to buy it. Think of oil like lentils. Canada is the world’s largest exporter of lentils, and most of those leave our borders in their rawest possible state as dried, split grains. Canada could try “value-adding” those grains by insisting that they be processed into Bavarian lentil soup before export — but that’s going to be a problem if an Indian freighter pulls up looking for dal ingredients.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Jun 2018)

Our big refinery had to close recently for a 2 month upgrade, that drove the price up here by around 10cents a litre, there has been a persistent diesel shortage, now slightly eased by BC Ferries going to Natural Gas. All the refined product for anywhere north of Vancouver has to come from the US or Alberta, the refinery in PG meets the local need.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Jun 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Our big refinery had to close recently for a 2 month upgrade, that drove the price up here by around 10cents a litre, there has been a persistent diesel shortage, now slightly eased by BC Ferries going to Natural Gas. All the refined product for anywhere north of Vancouver has to come from the US or Alberta, the refinery in PG meets the local need.



The great pipeline debate: Why isn’t more oil refined in B.C.?


About half of the refined products B.C. uses travel from Alberta: 50,000 bbls/d via the existing Trans Mountain line and a similar amount by rail and truck, the fuels association says.

The rest, 30,000 bbls/d, including biofuels, comes from beyond Canada’s borders, mostly from Washington state’s five refineries. There are four within 60 kilometres of Victoria — the Phillips 66 refinery at Ferndale, near Bellingham, the nearby BP refinery at Cherry Point, and the Shell and Tesoro refineries at Anacortes — with a combined capacity of 590,000 bbls/d.

Note that none of the product from Washington’s refineries is shipped overseas; almost 90 per cent is sold in the U.S., the rest in Canada. Also note that just over half the product travelling through the existing 300,000 bbl/d Trans Mountain pipe is crude that gets diverted to the Washington refineries via the Puget Sound spur line from Sumas. Effectively, they’re buying our oil and selling it back, refined, at a premium.

http://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2018/4/great-pipeline-debate-why-isnt-more-oil-refined-bc/


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Jun 2018)

It's a hard sell to convince the clamouring classes in BC to accept more pipeline capacity.  Good luck finding a place to park a refinery close to markets in the lower mainland.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jun 2018)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> OK, but what's the problem with refining it in Alberta and using it for our own market needs. The uses for oil as I'm sure you are well aware go far beyond fuel energy. It is THE primary strategic ingredient in hardware coverings, new building materials and other products from emerging  manufacturing technologies.
> It is disheartening to see that this country continues to de-industrialize and cede that space to Asia and others when we could lead.
> Really, why was this not part of the backup plan of the feds?



It should be fairly self evident the Feds had no real plan going in, and indeed most of this mess is self induced by the very Liberal government which is now buying the pipeline and will grandly tax us for another 7-10 billion "investment money" to build the thing. So there never was a backup plan, and of course if they run into trouble again, there will be no "plan B" then, either.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jun 2018)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> It should be fairly self evident the Feds had no real plan going in, and indeed most of this mess is self induced by the very Liberal government which is now buying the pipeline and will grandly tax us for another 7-10 billion "investment money" to build the thing. So there never was a backup plan, and of course if they run into trouble again, there will be no "plan B" then, either.



Sounds like Canada has a fighter jet oil refining "Capability Gap."  Perhaps we could get some used refineries to tide us over until more modern refineries are built?

Cheers,
G2G


----------



## Altair (3 Jun 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Sounds like Canada has a fighter jet oil refining "Capability Gap."  Perhaps we could get some used refineries to tide us over until more modern refineries are built?
> 
> Cheers,
> G2G


North America does not need more refineries


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jun 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> North America does not need more refineries



It either needs more pipelines, or more refineries, but not neither...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Jun 2018)

The pickle for the Libs is that if KM walks, then any other proposal to build it would fall under their new legislation that is before Parliament and that would most certainly kill it. The current proposed pipeline will remain grandfathered under the Harper era rules as long as they continue with it. Meaning that the Libs can't take the long road on this.


----------



## YZT580 (4 Jun 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The pickle for the Libs is that if KM walks, then any other proposal to build it would fall under their new legislation that is before Parliament and that would most certainly kill it. The current proposed pipeline will remain grandfathered under the Harper era rules as long as they continue with it. Meaning that the Libs can't take the long road on this.


Or they get hoisted by their own petard.


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Jun 2018)

Well, this is interesting.  A BC company claims to be sucking CO2 from the air and creating fuel.  

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-company-says-it-is-sucking-carbon-from-air-making-fuel-1.4696817


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Jun 2018)

There's certainly enough hot air to use as a resource!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Jun 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Well, this is interesting.  A BC company claims to be sucking CO2 from the air and creating fuel.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-company-says-it-is-sucking-carbon-from-air-making-fuel-1.4696817



If this actually works as advertised and is scaleable, this is a game changer.


----------



## Bearpaw (8 Jun 2018)

More on the CO2 direct conversion technology:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/cost-plunges-capturing-carbon-dioxide-air


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jun 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Well, this is interesting.  A BC company claims to be sucking CO2 from the air and creating fuel.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-company-says-it-is-sucking-carbon-from-air-making-fuel-1.4696817



Here's a thought - apply the technology where it is most cost effective - ie where the CO2 concentration is richest.

And where is the CO2 concentration the richest, you ask? At a smoke stack.

Burn Coal.  Make Energy and CO2.  Make Fuel from CO2.  Burn Fuel from CO2.   Make Energy and CO2.  Burn Fuel from CO2.

Or you can process tonnes of air looking for grams of fuel......  Meanwhile the greening of the earth that has been occurring will slow and stop due to inadequate CO2.

 :facepalm:

Me? Made from best Ayrshire coal.


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Jun 2018)

> Here's a thought - apply the technology where it is most cost effective - ie where the CO2 concentration is richest.



Ottawa?

HDHQ, or spread around the country to the many CF HQ's?


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Jun 2018)

More info needed, particularly on energy in vs energy out.  A process running on "renewable" electrical energy sources is meaningless if the energy is being pulled out of the grid (who decides whose consumption is renewable and whose is non-renewable?) rather than produced and consumed on-site.  And we'll be waiting a long time for an on-site producer/consumer to produce meaningful quantities of anything.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jun 2018)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> More info needed, particularly on energy in vs energy out.  A process running on "renewable" electrical energy sources is meaningless if the energy is being pulled out of the grid (who decides whose consumption is renewable and whose is non-renewable?) rather than produced and consumed on-site.  And we'll be waiting a long time for an on-site producer/consumer to produce meaningful quantities of anything.



TANSTAAFL seems to apply....



> At least seven companies worldwide are working on the idea. Swiss-based Climeworks has already built a commercial-scale plant.
> 
> Carbon capture economics
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Jun 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Well, this is interesting.  A BC company claims to be sucking CO2 from the air and creating fuel.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-company-says-it-is-sucking-carbon-from-air-making-fuel-1.4696817



Many a scam has come out of Vancouver, investor beware.


----------



## Altair (5 Jul 2018)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/notley-seen-as-political-leader-most-responsible-for-pushing-trans-mountain-pipeline-ahead-new-poll-suggests-1.4733791



> A new poll conducted for CBC News suggests 42 per cent of Albertans think Notley is the politician most responsible for pushing the proposed Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion ahead. While a majority of Albertans support the federal government's purchase of Trans Mountain, an equal number remain skeptical about the expansion happening on time.





> While the NDP premier gets top billing among Albertans, she shares the credit with other politicians, including Trudeau, who is the pick of 27 per cent of Albertans.



Notley and Trudeau getting some credit for pushing for the pipeline, colour me surprised.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jul 2018)

Not surprising at all, once your outside the major Urban centres a whole new reality awaits.


----------



## Loachman (5 Jul 2018)

Yes, well, colour me _*not*_ surprised for this one:

http://edmontonsun.com/opinion/columnists/gunter-yet-another-sign-trans-mountain-isnt-getting-built-anytime-soon/wcm/379aebea-2a91-42d6-a79e-9da8a17d8eb0

GUNTER: Yet another sign Trans Mountain isn't getting built anytime soon

Lorne Gunter

Published: June 29, 2018 

Updated: June 29, 2018 2:48 PM MDT 

I’ve maintained all along the Trudeau government doesn’t really want this pipeline built. It just bought it to get pro-development critics off its back.

What they are really doing is holding off construction – and the ugly scenes of violent protest by environmentalists – until after next October’s federal election, when their 18 B.C. MPs are safely back in office.

After that, they can kill the pipeline altogether.

It’s this attitude by the federal government, plus carbon taxes by the feds and provinces, plus new rules on assessing energy megaprojects that make future projects next to impossible, plus higher corporate and personal taxes, plus fanciful beliefs that “green” energies can replace fossil fuels quickly and easily that have contributed to an anti-energy mindset among Canadian decisionmakers.

That mindset prompted Tom Whalen, chief executive officer of the Petroleum Services Association of Canada to tell Bloomberg News this week, “We are kind of dying by our own sword. We are making it very difficult to do business.”


----------



## Altair (5 Jul 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Yes, well, colour me _*not*_ surprised for this one:
> 
> http://edmontonsun.com/opinion/columnists/gunter-yet-another-sign-trans-mountain-isnt-getting-built-anytime-soon/wcm/379aebea-2a91-42d6-a79e-9da8a17d8eb0
> 
> ...


https://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/braid-while-protesters-dangle-trans-mountain-work-starts-again



> You’d have thought $4.5 billion in public funding would ensure an immediate reboot. But this is Canada. There were more delays.
> 
> Now we have an answer — work begins in earnest at the end of July on the 290-kilometre stretch of pipeline route between Edmonton and Jasper National Park.
> 
> ...



Uh huh.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Jul 2018)

Some might say that the government has been laying pipe since Oct 2015...


----------



## larry Strong (5 Jul 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Not surprising at all, once your outside the major Urban centres a whole new reality awaits.



Isn't that the truth...We have a by-election in my riding next week....I fully expect a resounding NDP spanking both here and in Fort Mac....


Cheers
Larry


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Aug 2018)

Canada is really in trouble economically. Kinder Morgan probably saw this coming and suckered the Liberals.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-trans-mountain-federal-court-appeals-1.4804495
*
Federal Court of Appeal quashes construction approvals for Trans Mountain, leaving project in limbo* - 30 Aug 18
_Indigenous groups had opposed $7.4B project_

In a stunning blow, the Federal Court of Appeal has quashed the government's approvals to build the Trans Mountain expansion project — a major victory for Indigenous groups and environmentalists opposed to the $7.4-billion project. In the decision released Thursday, and written by Justice Eleanor Dawson, the court found the National Energy Board's assessment of the project was so flawed that it should not have been relied on by the federal cabinet when it gave final approval to proceed in November 2016.

The certificate approving construction and operation of the project has been nullified, leaving the project in legal limbo until the energy regulator and the government reassess their approvals to satisfy the court's demands. In effect, the court has halted construction of the 1,150-kilometre project indefinitely.

Amid uncertainty, Kinder Morgan agreed to sell the existing pipeline and the expansion project to the federal government this spring. The company's shareholders approved the sale Thursday morning in Calgary in a previously scheduled vote held just after the court's decision was released.

*Now, the Liberal government is the owner of a proposed pipeline project that could be subject to years of further review.*

Finance Minister Bill Morneau said in a tweet that the federal government is reviewing the decision. He is expected to speak to reporters in Toronto on Thursday afternoon.



> Bill Morneau
> ✔
> @Bill_Morneau
> We have received the ruling by the Federal Court of Appeal, and are taking the appropriate time to review the decision. I’ll be speaking to reporters regarding the Trans Mountain Expansion Project later today.



In its initial study of the project, the NEB found that the pipeline would not cause significant adverse environmental impacts. But the court has determined that conclusion is bogus because it did not assess the impacts of marine shipping — increased tanker traffic that would result from the expanded pipeline — on the environment and southern resident killer whales in the waters around the line's shipping terminal.

The appellate court also found that the federal government did not adequately, or meaningfully, consult with Indigenous people and hear out their concerns after the NEB issued its report recommending that cabinet approve the project. The court has ordered the federal government redo its Phase 3 consultation "Only after that consultation is completed and any accommodation made can the project be put before the Governor in Council (cabinet) for approval," the decision reads. "The duty to consult was not adequately discharged in this case."

Thus, the court is ordering cabinet to direct the NEB to reconsider its approval of the project and remedy some of the concerns raised by the court before cabinet can give the final go-ahead for construction.


----------



## FSTO (30 Aug 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> https://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/braid-while-protesters-dangle-trans-mountain-work-starts-again
> 
> 
> Uh huh.



Looks like the Liberal claim of getting pipe to tidewater wont hold much water in 2019.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-trans-mountain-federal-court-appeals-1.4804495


----------



## larry Strong (30 Aug 2018)

Excellent news. This guarantees the NDP wipe out in 274 days


Cheers
Larry


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Aug 2018)

They will go out and consult specifically on the issues the court mentioned, the FN are obligated to respond in a meaningful manner and will be annoyed at the limited scope of the new consultation.

My office had this pipeline at first and then it was taken away from us and given in whole to NEB to review, thank god for that.


----------



## Ashkan08 (30 Aug 2018)

Although not considered so, I feel like the liberals are now more left wing ( or maybe it's just Trudeau and Kathleen Wynne ) than the NDP.


----------



## QV (30 Aug 2018)

Kinder Morgan most certainly anticipated this and acted swiftly right after the ruling. 

"Kinder Morgan shareholders approve the sale of the project to Ottawa with 99% support less than an hour after the ruling "
https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/trans-mountain-pipeline-approval-quashed-by-court

I think we are in big trouble economically with all that is going on.


----------



## Cloud Cover (30 Aug 2018)

Duty to consult, summary:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_consult_and_accommodate

Seems pretty extensive, and highly unlikely the government can meet its obligations on any natural resource project if there is a speck of discontent from FN.

Also note the little note where some treaty obligations made a century ago are verbal, but still enforceable (unlike verbal promises to veterans that were made a century ago).


----------



## KJK (30 Aug 2018)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Excellent news. This guarantees the NDP wipe out in 274 days
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Larry



Not that we are counting the days or anything but it appears the social license she promised didn't appear.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Aug 2018)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Duty to consult, summary:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_consult_and_accommodate
> 
> Seems pretty extensive, and highly unlikely the government can meet its obligations on any natural resource project if there is a speck of discontent from FN.
> ...



We go through this exercise almost daily, consultation is a two way street, the FN's also have a duty to meaningfully engage. To be successful, you need to consult fairly and go through the process, crossing T and dotting i's. Problem arise when you attempt to hurry or limit the process. I have never been a fan of the NEB process as it is to "court like" and creates a almost adversarial approach in my opinion. FN's do not have a veto and failure to show up at consultation meetings will not stop a project review.


----------



## QV (30 Aug 2018)

What the heck...

https://www.kijiji.ca/v-other-real-estate/edmonton/pipeline-for-sale/1380364472?dc=true


----------



## larry Strong (30 Aug 2018)

KJK said:
			
		

> Not that we are counting the days or anything but it appears the social license she promised didn't appear.



Well....I for 1 am.

I seriously think anyone who believed that the mythical "Social Licence" was going to appear is living in Wolkenkuckucksheim........



Cheers
Larry


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Aug 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> We go through this exercise almost daily, consultation is a two way street, the FN's also have a duty to meaningfully engage. To be successful, you need to consult fairly and go through the process, crossing T and dotting i's. Problem arise when you attempt to hurry or limit the process. I have never been a fan of the NEB process as it is to "court like" and creates a almost adversarial approach in my opinion. FN's do not have a veto and failure to show up at consultation meetings will not stop a project review.



Exactly. Which means you need to keep good records of the way your consultation process played out, and I assume that they didn't do that in a way that would satisfy a judge.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Sep 2018)

From a quick read, it seems they met the test laid out in previous court cases, but this one has moved the bar higher. I am meeting with some very strong minded bands for consultations on 2 different projects over the next couple of days. Should prove interesting to see if they bring this issue up or not. Mind you in this case other issues are at play and their hand is a bit weak. The Musqueam band will no doubt bring this up in all consultations.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Sep 2018)

In the Kinder-Morgan case, the Southern Resident Killer Whales issue should be interesting. 

There is, of course, something that can be done to help the population and reduce the threat to their existence - but it can only be done jointly with the US - and for either country, it would be first in the commercial shipping world: Underwater noise emission standards fully enforced.

Shipping in general doesn't cause much hazard to whales and dolphins (Unless it's to hunt them. Wink! Wink! Japanese researchers) and actual collisions are fairly rare events. However, the stress put on the animals from the radiated noise in the water has been reasonably well documented from a scientific point of view. Now, warships are silenced as a matter of fact for ASW purposes and so, various technologies to reduce noise exist. Merchant ships on the other hand spend no money whatsoever on the issue, and some of them are so noisy, you pick them up half an ocean away on sonars. If the two governments want to be serious about the whales, they could (and in my view - should) come up with maximum radiated noise levels for merchant ships and enforce them in Juan de Fuca strait, Pugget Sound area and all of the inner passage in BC coastal waters.

Double-hulled tankers requirements were imposed on merchant shipping as mean to reduce oil pollution, why shouldn't Canada and the US be the first to push noise pollution control measures on such shipping? Imagine if our young PM managed to convince the US to go along with something like that! Trudeau and the liberals would become insufferable, but IMHO it would be worth living through that.

Now THAT would seriously help the SRKW.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Sep 2018)

They'll have to do something about noise.  If the estimated additional tanker traffic will doom the orcas, then the relevant bands might as well have a series of ceremonial hunts and kill them all now, because estimated future non-tanker traffic increases (ie. ships transiting per day) vastly exceed that of tankers.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Sep 2018)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> They'll have to do something about noise.  If the estimated additional tanker traffic will doom the orcas, then the relevant bands might as well have a series of ceremonial hunts and kill them all now, because estimated future non-tanker traffic increases (ie. ships transiting per day) vastly exceed that of tankers.



It seems that 'they' already are, and it seems to be working.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/resident-killer-whales-boat-noise-study-1.4469372


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Sep 2018)

The best that can be done presently is to modify speeds locally. Sadly people think slow is better, it may not be. Every ship that comes into BC regularly, should have a sound signature profile done, at several different speeds. That ship could then be issued a directive to maintain those speeds in certain portions of water as the best speeds to be safe and reduce noise. Enforcement could be done by AIS, which would alert when they have a speed greater than X when in area Y. Canada, Europe and the US can push for vessels to have a sound signature done and that would be provided with other documentation upon approaching the coast.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (8 Sep 2018)

Trudeau should directly refer the matter to the Supreme Court.  For the Federal Court of Appeal to assume lack of consultation with Indians is odd considering 43 bands are in agreement.  The Supreme Court has previously said that natives must be consulted but they don't have a veto.  

The whole whale thing is peculiar in that it wasn't even an area of consideration under the enabling legislation.  That is not to say that the issue was ignored.  The government is spending $1.5 billion studying whales.  The judgement of the appeal court was particularly bad and should be corrected.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Sep 2018)

So the two elements of the decision I can see are scope and the level of responsiveness. If the Scope is adjusted to include shipping to Race rocks to and from the terminal. Then the real issues will be cumulative effects of roughly 360 ships (720 transits) vs roughly 3000 existing ships (6000 transits) and the accident and malfunction issues. 

As for increasing the engagement with FN`s further, that can be done and the feds could meet the test, yet leave the aggrieved parties unsatisfied. The review also shot down several arguments by the opposing parties, so basically ruling out the ability to challenge the project on those points.

So the Feds need to open a review to consider shipping, look at the existing records for issues that were not entirely satisfied or responded to. Using that as a guide, redo the consultation piece, respond in a wholesome manner to the issues raised, provide capacity funding so they can respond. There are other reviews that cover shipping already and there is the Oceans Protection Plan that can have further elements hung onto it`s framework to deal with the issues.


----------



## YZT580 (8 Sep 2018)

Perhaps they opened up the shipping issue themselves through their legislation banning tankers from the north shore?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Sep 2018)

It certainly does not help


----------



## Rocky Mountains (9 Sep 2018)

Canada does not control shipping in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Americans are less likely to commit economic hari kari than Canadians.  I'm guessing that over time, despite whatever Canada decides, ships heading into the Port of Seattle will be killing whales in ever increasing numbers.  Also note that we haven't strangled the Ports of Montreal, Quebec, and the Great Lakes despite an unsustainable loss of whales in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Sep 2018)

Both the US and Canada are working together to reduce impacts on the resident Killer whales. In fact the EPA has far more teeth than CEAA ever had and can force requirements onto shipping.


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Oct 2018)

Via Twitter 12 Oct 18:

1. Dan McTeague @GasBuddyDan
‏
Nice to see WTI trading at $71.50 a barrel, Saudi Arabia getting $$78.71 for its heavy oil and even basketcase Venezuelan Merey getting $67.38/barrel. Canada’s WCS oil? $15.97 
LET THAT SINK IN. WAKE UP CANADA. 

2. Charles Adler@charlesadler

Charles Adler Retweeted Dan McTeague
If Quebec had to sell power and Ontario had to sell automotive and BC had to sell tourism at these kinds of disgusting discounts, we would say the country's in crisis. But the Ottawa attitude on this economic catastrophe for #Alberta is  "there's nothing to see here."


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Feb 2019)

It's on again

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/neb-tmx-killer-whales-1.5028051

The 16 new recommendations are:

Develop and implement a regional cumulative effects management plan.
Report publicly on the cumulative effects and health of the Salish Sea.
Develop a marine bird-monitoring and protection program.
Expedite the work in completing the feasibility study for establishing a Southern Strait of Georgia National Marine Conservation Area Reserve.
Develop a program to offset both the increased underwater noise and the increased strike risk posed to Species at Risk Act-listed marine mammal and fish species.
Consider slowdowns in certain marine shipping routes and noise reduction on ferries.
Update federal marine shipping oil spill response requirements.
Mandate enhanced tug escort in the Salish Sea for tankers.
Consider the need for a Canada/United States Transboundary Vessel Traffic Risk Assessment.
Develop greenhouse gas reduction measures related to marine shipping.
Seek feedback from the Indigenous advisory and monitoring committee on the marine safety system.
Continue engagement with coastal Indigenous communities, recreational boaters, fishing vessel operators and operators of small vessels.
Enhance the safety of all sizes of marine vessels.
Provide financial incentives to promote innovation in new oil recovery technologies.
Review the federal marine oil spill compensation regimes.
Develop a formal complaint resolution program.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Feb 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> It's on again
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/neb-tmx-killer-whales-1.5028051
> 
> ...



And then reverse the Woodland Caribou extinction while you're at it


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Feb 2019)

And the bureaucratese version ...


> The National Energy Board (NEB) today delivered its Reconsideration report to the Government of Canada, with an overall recommendation that the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (Project) is in the Canadian public interest and should be approved.
> 
> The NEB will impose 156 conditions on the Project if it is approved, and has made 16 new recommendations to the Government of Canada. The recommendations relate to matters that fall outside of the NEB’s regulatory mandate, but within the authority of the Government of Canada.
> 
> ...


More @ link


----------



## YZT580 (22 Feb 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> It's on again


  Good thing we own it.  No company could afford to meet all those conditions without going bust.  And they have just made it more expensive for every ship that enters the waterway regardless of whether it is carrying crude or not.  
And the picket lines and trespassing will be back monday with lawsuits and court order requests to follow on Tuesday.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Feb 2019)

It's on again ... Really!!! Not, is my opinion.

Here's an interesting portion of the "bureaucratic" version put up by Tony:

*In addition, the NEB has made 16 recommendations to the Government of Canada related to Project-related marine shipping, including: cumulative effects management for the Salish Sea, measures to offset increased underwater noise and increased strike risk posted to SARA-listed marine mammal and fish species, marine oil spill response, marine shipping and small vessel safety, reduction of GHG emissions from marine vessels, and the Indigenous Advisory and Monitoring Committee for the Project./i]*_

Those 16 recommendations to the Government of Canada are the ones listed below by Colin:



			
				Colin P said:
			
		


			Develop and implement a regional cumulative effects management plan.
Report publicly on the cumulative effects and health of the Salish Sea.
Develop a marine bird-monitoring and protection program.
Expedite the work in completing the feasibility study for establishing a Southern Strait of Georgia National Marine Conservation Area Reserve.
Develop a program to offset both the increased underwater noise and the increased strike risk posed to Species at Risk Act-listed marine mammal and fish species.
Consider slowdowns in certain marine shipping routes and noise reduction on ferries.
Update federal marine shipping oil spill response requirements.
Mandate enhanced tug escort in the Salish Sea for tankers.
Consider the need for a Canada/United States Transboundary Vessel Traffic Risk Assessment.
Develop greenhouse gas reduction measures related to marine shipping.
Seek feedback from the Indigenous advisory and monitoring committee on the marine safety system.
Continue engagement with coastal Indigenous communities, recreational boaters, fishing vessel operators and operators of small vessels.
Enhance the safety of all sizes of marine vessels.
Provide financial incentives to promote innovation in new oil recovery technologies.
Review the federal marine oil spill compensation regimes.
Develop a formal complaint resolution program.
		
Click to expand...


Rest assured that: 

(1) the various groups fighting this take all possible actions to make sure that these "recommendations" become considered compulsory conditions for the construction of the pipeline in the population's mind, i.e. that they must be met before anything gets built; and,
(2) that the current governing party will see it as such in any event as anything else would lose them their B.C. seats for quite a while.

Now look at how extensive the plans and regulations requirements "recommended" by the NEB are. Colin can probably attest to this, but Transport Canada is one of the slowest department when it comes to regulating anything. When Offshore oil was developed off Newfoundland, it took them seven years to come up with minor tweaks to marine regulations to add things like compulsory survival suits for all onboard support vessels. 

There is enough regulatory work required to give effect to the NEB "recommendations" to keep that department going for half a century before achieving anything - unless the government invests heavily into expanding the department at great cost. I don't think Canadians are ready for the types of investment that would require.

So mark my words: this thing that just costs us 4.5 B$, and will cost many more billions to just appear (on the part of the government) to move on the "recommendations", so as to not alienate Alberta even more, will move so far off in the future that it will ultimately never be built.

The funny thing is, if the government had not bought Kinder Morgan, the pipeline could probably have been built and permits/certificates issued with the company meeting its 156 obligations and the GoC merely saying it was taking the recommendations to it onboard and was moving on them. Now that the GoC is the shareholder of the pipeline company, the two become entangled and not really separable.

Anyway, I'll be dead by the time Alberta oil flows in the new Trans mountain.  ;D    _


----------



## FSTO (23 Feb 2019)

Where are the recommendations that the Whale Watching industry be more closely monitored on their effect on the chasing of pods of Orcas all about the Salish Sea and the constant stress these animals face on a daily basis.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Feb 2019)

Well we could start by banning recreational boating in Georgia Strait, requiring all ferry traffic to be limited to essential travel only. I am sure all the progressives can get behind that....


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Feb 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Where are the recommendations that the Whale Watching industry be more closely monitored on their effect on the chasing of pods of Orcas all about the Salish Sea and the constant stress these animals face on a daily basis.



But, most of the companies have the prefix "eco" right in their name. That must mean something!

And of course, none of their boats run on petroleum fuel, right?   :


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Feb 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> But, most of the companies have the prefix "eco" right in their name. That must mean something!
> 
> And of course, none of their boats run on petroleum fuel, right?   :




I'm so impressed you could type that with a straight face.  :cheers:


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Feb 2019)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I'm so impressed you could type that with a straight face.  :cheers:



Be careful, the City of Victoria might sue you, too: 

City of Victoria recommends class-action lawsuit against the oil and gas industry

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-city-of-victoria-recommends-class-action-lawsuit-against-the-oil-and/


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Feb 2019)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I'm so impressed you could type that with a straight face.  :cheers:



Yes, TeslaBoat 1...no fossil fuels at all... :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Feb 2019)

I see it's working.    SNC is sliding quietly away, as is JWR.
This and other small little bush fires are being set to see which one the wind gets behind that can be fanned into a conflagration, but making sure the dynamite sweats just enough nobody will will remember anything else. Once the threat is over, it can be safely stored away forever, in the old mine.

That's what I was thinking, anyway, while staring at the ceiling and listening to this crazy 40-60 kph west wind. Idle musings of an unoccupied mind. :alone:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Feb 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Be careful, the City of Victoria might sue you, too:
> 
> City of Victoria recommends class-action lawsuit against the oil and gas industry
> 
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-city-of-victoria-recommends-class-action-lawsuit-against-the-oil-and/



The same city that pumped their crap directly into the ocean because they were to cheap to pay for a primary treatment plant...


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Feb 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The same city that pumped their crap directly into the ocean because they were to cheap to pay for a primary treatment plant...



:not-again:

...the same...


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Feb 2019)

> Develop and implement a regional cumulative effects management plan.
> Report publicly on the cumulative effects and health of the Salish Sea.
> Develop a marine bird-monitoring and protection program.
> Expedite the work in completing the feasibility study for establishing a Southern Strait of Georgia National Marine Conservation Area Reserve.
> ...




Is it just me or does anyone else see an NEB pushback against the Feds and BC?

None of these recommendations are within the purview of private industry.  I sense that all of these are only included because the owner is now the Federal Government, the same Feds that have cast aspersions on the NEB.

Also we have recommendations that will inflict pain on BC even in the absence of a pipeline reference.

The board is essentially recommending that all marine traffic should be reconsidered for its effects on greenhouse gases and orcas.  If you are going to go green then you need to drive your ferries slower (more ferries BC, and longer transit time commuters) and you really should do something about all those internal combustion engines powering all ships and boats in your harbour Vancouver.  All those dirty bulk freighters idling at anchor.  

And while we're at it lets tighten up on our oil spill response and general marine safety Feds.

This list is not directed at the oil transport system.  In my view it is arguing for "levelling the playing field" by saying that if there are concerns about the effects of tankers then the same concerns are equally valid for every other hull in the water (including whale watching boats).


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Feb 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> ...In my view it is arguing for "levelling the playing field" by saying that if there are concerns about the effects of tankers then the same concerns are equally valid for every other hull in the water (including whale watching boats).



Which is actually a valid point about fairness to an industry that an environmental pressure was placing on it, but not others. Vancouver has heavy traffic of massive, fast moving comtainer ships that are just as dangerous if not more, than slower tankers. Last picture I recall seeing if a Right Whale ‘speared’ on a ships bulbous now, it was a container ship, not a tanker. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Lumber (25 Feb 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Last picture I recall seeing if a Right Whale ‘speared’ on a ships bulbous now, it was a container ship, not a tanker.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Wasn't it a cruise ship that subsequently docked at Canada place?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Feb 2019)

Yes. We almost rammed a Humpback that surfaced in front of our cutter. DFO placed blades on the front of their cutters to ram whales and basking sharks. They also wanted to mount a HMG at East Saturna Point to shoot the Killer Whales with. somewhere I have a report from DFO in 1922 where they borrowed a Lewis gun and veteran and proceeded to machine gun a Sea lion rookery with "Great Success"


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Feb 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Wasn't it a cruise ship that subsequently docked at Canada place?



Dang, that’s right, too!  Either way, not an evil oil-bearing emisary vessel of Satan.


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Feb 2019)

You can see the full list of the recommendations and details of what they are looking for here; https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/pplctnflng/mjrpp/trnsmntnxpnsn/trnsmntnxpnsnrprtcndtn-eng.html

This one has me scratching my head;



> The Governor in Council should actively support the development and implementation of greenhouse gas reduction measures related to marine shipping that would align with the final International Maritime Organization Strategy by year 2023 for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These measures could include, but not be limited to:
> 
> facilitating the use of low-carbon alternate fuels (such as liquefied natural gas) for marine vessels by developing any necessary marine safety regulatory framework, training programs, and bunkering infrastructure requirements;
> use of energy efficient technologies, such as engine and propulsion upgrades and hull modifications; and
> ...



Did some reading (see IMO link below) on the 2023 plan, but all the territoral waters in NA are already exhaust control areas (ECAs) so they are already limited in what fuel that they can use, with some new standards kicking in Jan 2020.  Canada is already part of the IMO (which is a UN organization) and normally adopts the resolutions as part of the CSA regulations.

Hard to wade through the jargon in the recommendations, but aren't we already actively involved in that?  

Their recommendations don't seem unreasonable on the surface, but from a quick read the ones that are under development are 5 year plus programs, and others also look pretty long term.  They are also all over the place in terms of responsibility, and would require a number of different GoC departments to do things, plus Canada/US work.  It seems pretty ambitious, can see why a private company would have walked away from this.  Plus it streches over more than one mandate, so even if someone starts today, it will grind to a halt during the election period, then need a restart when the BGHs change their minds and the implementation does a 180.

http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/18-MEPCGHGprogramme.aspx?__hstc=32645665.7ab734f9822a9c3981f04695664b9dc0.1541376000087.1541376000088.1541376000089.1&__hssc=32645665.1.1541376000090&__hsfp=528229161z


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Feb 2019)

Apparently there is concern that there will not be enough Low Sulfur fuel to go around, hence the push for LNG fueled ships


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Feb 2019)

No coincidence that BC has Natural Gas, intends to use Natural Gas and intends to export Natural Gas ..... in competition with Oil from Alberta.

Oil which also competes with Coal exported by BC.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Feb 2019)

Coal exports are way up, a lot of our coal is for filters and coking. In fact Ridely Terminals is planning a 2nd berth to load LPG. I recently approved a LPG loading arm on their existing coal berth, but they forsee usage conflicts. 1 other LPG loading terminal is underway up there (Pembina) and another proposed (Vopak). also rumour of a LPG terminal in Kitimat as well, along with LNGCanada underway with one final FID to go.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Feb 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Coal exports are way up, a lot of our coal is for filters and coking. In fact Ridely Terminals is planning a 2nd berth to load LPG. I recently approved a LPG loading arm on their existing coal berth, but they forsee usage conflicts. 1 other LPG loading terminal is underway up there (Pembina) and another proposed (Vopak). also rumour of a LPG terminal in Kitimat as well, along with LNGCanada underway with one final FID to go.



I'm thinking that China just might just be driving some of that coal demand: https://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?product=coal&graph=consumption&display=rank

I assume they use environmentalists to spark the coking ovens...


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Feb 2019)

Retired and unemployed Europeans don't need coal.  The Chinese might as well have it.


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Jun 2019)

Interesting opinion article in the Financial Post concerning foreign activist investors looking to profit from oil and gas environmental litigation:

"Collusion between foreign interests and local eco-radicals is shackling Canada’s economic potential for years, and perhaps decades, to come, and Canadians have a right to know about this plot. Businesses, once killed, are not easily resurrected. Investors scared off by a hostile investment and legal climate may never return. That impacts real jobs and real people. The facts are known. The question is, what will our government do about it?"

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/the-plot-to-murder-canadas-resource-sector-is-one-script-hollywood-wont-touch


----------



## YZT580 (11 Jun 2019)

And why, pray tell, is it only in the Financial Post?  It should be front page and above the fold in every major paper and hammered home by the leaders of both major parties together. Silence means collusion.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Jun 2019)

I noticed a good sized stockpile of pipe Just off of Hwy 1 near Hope.

https://www.transmountain.com/news/2019/trans-mountain-corporation-releases-first-quarter-2019-results


----------

