Pipelines, energy and natural resources

[brihard]

Probably a dumb question… We recently finished twinning Trans Mountain (which was need to see in progress as we drove through the mountains a couple years ago). Rather than figuring out a whole new route, is there a really compelling reason not to add a third pipe to what’s already there? Now, I don’t know if maybe it’s a port capacity issue or something, or if we’ve already shoehorned in as much pipe as we can through some parts of the route. But what’s the compelling case for others B.C. specifically?

 

[Kirkhill]

Probably a dumb question… We recently finished twinning Trans Mountain (which was need to see in progress as we drove through the mountains a couple years ago). Rather than figuring out a whole new route, is there a really compelling reason not to add a third pipe to what’s already there? Now, I don’t know if maybe it’s a port capacity issue or something, or if we’ve already shoehorned in as much pipe as we can through some parts of the route. But what’s the compelling case for others B.C. specifically?

I believe there is already a spur in the new line that is intended for a pipeline to Kitimat.

'Northern Leg' to B.C. coast could be built off existing Trans Mountain pipeline, sources say

A long-shelved proposal to build a northern branch off the Trans Mountain pipeline system to the northern British Columbia coast is attracting renewed interest as t…

calgaryherald.com

The structure to support an additional 300 to 400,000 bpd exists from Alberta into BC (Edmonton to Mount Robson).

 

[Kirkhill]

Part of me wants us to go down the path of a Canadian owned oil pipeline, a nice big one, right to the west coast, even a nice big refinery there as well. By ‘Canadian’ I mean a Federal Government one, maybe even having BC and Alberta directly own 10% each.

Our governments build publicly funded roads and ports. Power plants and waterways.

David Eby even plans on spending 3 BCAD on a powerline that can't get any private backers. I am pretty sure their will be a transmission charge to recoup the cost.

Ontario, BC, Quebec and Ottawa have all financed and built roads and bridges, not to mention ferries, and then recouped costs with user tolls.

But Alberta oil, a legally transportable product all over Canada, and the States, the whole world for that matter, is different.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

NoCGV Svalbard has, as one of her duties, towing up to 100,000 tons. 13 MW generated, 10 MW of propulsion.

HMCS Harry de Wolf, 13 MW generated, 9 MW of propulsion.

An Aframax tanker displaces 80-120,000 tonnes.

...

Homeport the two new Coast Guard AOPVs in Rupert.

Crew them with Haisla.

How much shaft horsepower you can generate isn’t the whole story for a salvage tug. Your tow rig is equally (if not more) important.

 

[Kirkhill]

I will take your word for that

Here is the stern of the Svalbard.

Google Image Result for http://www.helis.com/database/pics/sis/833.jpg

 

[Czech_pivo]

Our governments build publicly funded roads and ports. Power plants and waterways.

David Eby even plans on spending 3 BCAD on a powerline that can't get any private backers. I am pretty sure their will be a transmission charge to recoup the cost.

Ontario, BC, Quebec and Ottawa have all financed and built roads and bridges, not to mention ferries, and then recouped costs with user tolls.

But Alberta oil, a legally transportable product all over Canada, and the States, the whole world for that matter, is different.

I think we put our head down and plow forward like in a scrum and get the job done.

The majority of Canadians will be behind this.

 

[YZT580]

I think we put our head down and plow forward like in a scrum and get the job done.

The majority of Canadians will be behind this.

it wasn't in Carney's top 5 and he has never pushed the notion. He might be forced into accepting a line to Churchill but I wouldn't bet on another BC pipe. The natives won't agree and the oil companies won't pay the taxes and the ships can't get to the terminus. He might push for more natural gas lines but never that dirty oil

 

[Czech_pivo]

it wasn't in Carney's top 5 and he has never pushed the notion. He might be forced into accepting a line to Churchill but I wouldn't bet on another BC pipe. The natives won't agree and the oil companies won't pay the taxes and the ships can't get to the terminus. He might push for more natural gas lines but never that dirty oil

Time will tell.
Nat gas is going to move and move lots.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

How much shaft horsepower you can generate isn’t the whole story for a salvage tug. Your tow rig is equally (if not more) important.

Most of our CCG vessels are not setup for towing and most certainly not for VLCC's. The tow rig was not the prettiest sight, but would likley do to hold station and maybe gain a bit if the weather held. Also we did not have tow winch and would have to use our mooring bollards for the bridle.

 

[brihard]

it wasn't in Carney's top 5

it did not, at the time, exist. Nor does it now, as anything beyond a political statement of intended funding for the conceptualization phase. There has to be a fleshed out project proposal for the Major Projects Office to do anything with.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Probably a dumb question… We recently finished twinning Trans Mountain (which was need to see in progress as we drove through the mountains a couple years ago). Rather than figuring out a whole new route, is there a really compelling reason not to add a third pipe to what’s already there? Now, I don’t know if maybe it’s a port capacity issue or something, or if we’ve already shoehorned in as much pipe as we can through some parts of the route. But what’s the compelling case for others B.C. specifically?

Ironically, before Sock Boy cancelled it, Northern Gateway was mainly intended to serve new Asian markets faster (Prince Rupert is a day or so faster by ship) and diversify away from a single market (USA). We also have vast carbon volume that has been landlocked for too long, as far as the markets are concerned, and a second pipeline would make sure we can ship more product reliably and faster.

This terrible decision is the main reason why Enbridge, the proponent, will likely never get involved in a BC based energy project, in the same way, again.


Why was the Northern Gateway Pipeline Cancelled?

Achieving regulatory approval in 2014 but then cancelled by the federal government in 2016, the oil pipeline was projected to create $300 billion in economic activity over its lifetime [6]. Its cancellation was a lost economic opportunity that would have helped Canadians diversify our energy export markets, maximize the value of our resources, and insulate our country from over-dependence on a single trading partner.

Why Was the Northern Gateway Pipeline Cancelled?

Why was the Northern Gateway pipeline in Canada cancelled? What can Canadians learn from the Northern Gateway's failure to help us get future projects built? Learn more today!

www.canadaaction.ca

 

[Brad Sallows]

Probably a dumb question… We recently finished twinning Trans Mountain (which was need to see in progress as we drove through the mountains a couple years ago). Rather than figuring out a whole new route, is there a really compelling reason not to add a third pipe to what’s already there? Now, I don’t know if maybe it’s a port capacity issue or something, or if we’ve already shoehorned in as much pipe as we can through some parts of the route. But what’s the compelling case for others B.C. specifically?

Ideally a refinery would be built at the terminus. PR might welcome one more than the lower mainland. There might also be valid reasons related to eggs in single baskets.

 

[YZT580]

it did not, at the time, exist. Nor does it now, as anything beyond a political statement of intended funding for the conceptualization phase. There has to be a fleshed out project proposal for the Major Projects Office to do anything with.

pardon me for being dumb but the reason there is no project proposal is because it has been proposed and continuously shot down. Why is the government limiting itself to only projects that it has already backstopped instead of getting down in the dirt and going for something known, needed, profitable and acceptable to most Canadians.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Probably a dumb question… We recently finished twinning Trans Mountain (which was need to see in progress as we drove through the mountains a couple years ago). Rather than figuring out a whole new route, is there a really compelling reason not to add a third pipe to what’s already there? Now, I don’t know if maybe it’s a port capacity issue or something, or if we’ve already shoehorned in as much pipe as we can through some parts of the route. But what’s the compelling case for others B.C. specifically?

As I recall 5-7m separation, but I could not find a reg or guideline quoting that, so take it with salt. In BC a Right of Way is 30m (15m each side of the pipeline).

 

[Kirkhill]

As I recall 5-7m separation, but I could not find a reg or guideline quoting that, so take it with salt. In BC a Right of Way is 30m (15m each side of the pipeline).

How about paralleling the natural gas pipeline to Kitimat with a bitumen line?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

How about paralleling the natural gas pipeline to Kitimat with a bitumen line?

I think they already paralleled an exist NG line, so the ROW might be getting crowded. Also in nasty terrain there might be multiple ROW overlapping or using the same space, along with roads, structures, etc. When you walk a NG ROW, you can feel and hear the gas moving through.

 

[brihard]

pardon me for being dumb but the reason there is no project proposal is because it has been proposed and continuously shot down. Why is the government limiting itself to only projects that it has already backstopped instead of getting down in the dirt and going for something known, needed, profitable and acceptable to most Canadians.

I was only answering what you actually said, not speaking to hypotheticals.

If it is in fact ‘known, needed, and profitable’, then the Alberta government, which seems keen to champion this, should have no difficulty finding the needed private sector partners.

It’s unfortunate that bad government policy to this point has prevented more infrastructure from going in, and the reticence of industry to jump at it is understandable. For the feds to make decisions on a project, however, there will have to actually be a project to decide on. I’d be happy to see either private industry, or a public-private partnership bring one to the table.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I was only answering what you actually said, not speaking to hypotheticals.

If it is in fact ‘known, needed, and profitable’, then the Alberta government, which seems keen to champion this, should have no difficulty finding the needed private sector partners.

It’s unfortunate that bad government policy to this point has prevented more infrastructure from going in, and the reticence of industry to jump at it is understandable. For the feds to make decisions on a project, however, there will have to actually be a project to decide on. I’d be happy to see either private industry, or a public-private partnership bring one to the table.

Indeed.

After all, they'll need some Western bucks to pay for that $100B high speed Eastern rail line

Canada's $100B First High-Speed Rail Line is on Track​

At long last, it seems the day has finally come: Canada is getting its first-ever high-speed rail network. This multi-billion-dollar project poses numerous potential benefits for multiple provinces in the country. Beyond enhancing transportation and connectivity for a huge portion of Canada’s 40 million people, the rail network also promises environmental benefits and a major boost to the country’s unsteady economy. It will be the largest infrastructure project in Canada’s history, offering a bright light on the horizon to a country currently swept up in the uncertainty of a volatile international trade climate. But it hasn’t come without controversy - nor has it come easily.