Pipelines, energy and natural resources

[Kirkhill]

No, ‘our side’ is crystal clear. Duty to consult is borne by the ‘crown’, full stop. That’s the federal or provincial executives due to our system of ‘responsible government’ where those executives act on the crown’s behalf. Formally through the GG/LGs. None of the rest of your list has any constitutional responsibility. That does not mean that any of those others may not feel political pressure if they have institutionally in ways that are held to run counter to the spirit of reconciliation, but that’s not a constitutional duty to consult issue. While the extent of duty to consult remains debated, who bears the duty is not.

You and I have not been getting the same news over the last few decades, apparently.

Depth in the channel / Burrard inlet is an issue. They haven’t been able to bring out fully loaded Aframaxes, however dredging was approved earlier this year that should allow that. But that’s about as good as the existing terminal will get. VLCC necessitates an ocean terminal.

What traffic can the Straits of Juan de Fuca, the San Juans and the Gulf Islands bear?

 

[brihard]

You and I have not been getting the same news over the last few decades, apparently.

I can’t guess as to where you went astray, but this has been settled for a long time. Lots of ink has been put to paper by the Supreme Court on this.

What traffic can the Straits of Juan de Fuca, the San Juans and the Gulf Islands bear?

They’re fine. Haro Strait and Boundary Pass are both a couple hundred meters deep. It’s all glacially carved fjords. And of course the main wider pass west of the islands has lots to work with.

I’m not sure what the depth is like just offshore of Tsawassen. Presumably this has all been assessed already by project proponents

 

[daftandbarmy]

You and I have not been getting the same news over the last few decades, apparently.



What traffic can the Straits of Juan de Fuca, the San Juans and the Gulf Islands bear?

Given enough tugs and pilots, just about anything - as I understand it from the pilots. There are far busier waterways around the world that do just fine.

As always the main issue with these big infrastructure decisions is seldom the hard infrastructure, but all the enablers that facilitate their operation.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Given enough tugs and pilots, just about anything - as I understand it from the pilots. There are far busier waterways around the world that do just fine.

As always the main issue with these big infrastructure decisions is seldom the hard infrastructure, but all the enablers that facilitate their operation.

What’s the volume of marine traffic (of all kinds of vessels) in the Straits of Malacca?
How does that compare to the above areas?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

What’s the volume of marine traffic (of all kinds of vessels) in the Straits of Malacca?
How does that compare to the above areas?

I’ve been in the Straits of Malacca and I have been in Haro Strait.

It is about like comparing a Costco Parking lot on a Pre Christmas Saturday to the parking lot of your local Anglican Church on a random tuesday morning…

 

[brihard]

What’s the volume of marine traffic (of all kinds of vessels) in the Straits of Malacca?
How does that compare to the above areas?

Yeah I don’t think anyone’s making an argument that volume of traffic will be an issue.

Say TM3 runs the planned 1m BPD. That’s half a VLCC per day. The port could likely be served by a Suezmax per day- that size vessel can do trans-oceanic runs no problem, and it probably offers more versatility on where it can go on the other end of the trip.

So yeah, a ship every day or two? No issue in terms of traffic volume. Obviously they’ll need excellent pilotage, and I imagine attending tugs with huge speakers playing “Move, bitch, get out the way”… But physical ship traffic will not, I think, be a constraint.

 

[YZT580]

No, ‘our side’ is crystal clear. Duty to consult is borne by the ‘crown’, full stop. That’s the federal or provincial executives due to our system of ‘responsible government’ where those executives act on the crown’s behalf. Formally through the GG/LGs. None of the rest of your list has any constitutional responsibility. That does not mean that any of those others may not feel political pressure if they have institutionally in ways that are held to run counter to the spirit of reconciliation, but that’s not a constitutional duty to consult issue. While the extent of duty to consult remains debated, who bears the duty is not.



Depth in the channel / Burrard inlet is an issue. They haven’t been able to bring out fully loaded Aframaxes, however dredging was approved earlier this year that should allow that. But that’s about as good as the existing terminal will get. VLCC necessitates an ocean terminal.

so theoretically they could construct a terminal off of the coast from Kitimat clear of the inner channel and meet the letter of the law re: no VLCCs provided they could get the first nations to sign on or the feds. to consult and do it anyways? Not intended to stir the pot just wondering if there is a large tanker option

 

[brihard]

so theoretically they could construct a terminal off of the coast from Kitimat clear of the inner channel and meet the letter of the law re: no VLCCs provided they could get the first nations to sign on or the feds. to consult and do it anyways? Not intended to stir the pot just wondering if there is a large tanker option

Sorry, ‘off the coast of Kitimat clear of the inner channel’? Not clear what you mean. Kitimat itself is well inland at the end of a fjord. You have to go out well past Haida Gwai to be beyond the tanker moratorium area; a few hundred KN straight line from Kitimat, a nearly 50km ocean span across the Hecate Strait, across Graham Island, and then tens of kilometers offshore. I see zero viable option for an offshore oil terminal in northern B.C. without a carve out from the tanker moratorium.

If I have this completely messed up can you give me a dot on a map to see where you’re talking about?

 

[Kirkhill]

And theoretically a pipeline to Tofino would be a workable solution. It is outside the tanker moratorium limits and is 150 m deep after you get over the 12 m bar at the mouth.

 

[YZT580]

Sorry, ‘off the coast of Kitimat clear of the inner channel’? Not clear what you mean. Kitimat itself is well inland at the end of a fjord. You have to go out well past Haida Gwai to be beyond the tanker moratorium area; a few hundred KN straight line from Kitimat, a nearly 50km ocean span across the Hecate Strait, across Graham Island, and then tens of kilometers offshore. I see zero viable option for an offshore oil terminal in northern B.C. without a carve out from the tanker moratorium.

If I have this completely messed up can you give me a dot on a map to see where you’re talking about?

You have answered my question, thank you. Any construction would have to occur off of Prince Rupert and clear of Moresby Island with Prince Rupert being a pipeline's western terminus. Appears to be impractical which puts all of Alberta's eggs in the one basket. It is the southern route or nothing. Has there been any additional rumours regarding the Churchill development?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Yeah I don’t think anyone’s making an argument that volume of traffic will be an issue.

Say TM3 runs the planned 1m BPD. That’s half a VLCC per day. The port could likely be served by a Suezmax per day- that size vessel can do trans-oceanic runs no problem, and it probably offers more versatility on where it can go on the other end of the trip.

So yeah, a ship every day or two? No issue in terms of traffic volume. Obviously they’ll need excellent pilotage, and I imagine attending tugs with huge speakers playing “Move, bitch, get out the way”… But physical ship traffic will not, I think, be a constraint.

That area is already mandatory pilotage.

Roberts Bank already takes really big container ships. Not sure if they are the largest in the world or how that compares to a VLCC.

 

[brihard]

And theoretically a pipeline to Tofino would be a workable solution. It is outside the tanker moratorium limits and is 150 m deep after you get over the 12 m bar at the mouth.

I mean, from an engineering standpoint could a subsea pipeline be run to Vancouver Island? Sure. But I don’t think Canada’s had a politician who smoked enough crack to seriously propose that since Doug Ford’s brother died.

You have answered my question, thank you. Any construction would have to occur off of Prince Rupert and clear of Moresby Island with Prince Rupert being a pipeline's western terminus. Appears to be impractical which puts all of Alberta's eggs in the one basket. It is the southern route or nothing. Has there been any additional rumours regarding the Churchill development?

Moresby Island is a couple hundred km from Prince Rupert. But anyway all of Canada’s territorial waters in northern B.C. falls subject to the moratorium. So yeah. There’s no option whatsoever in northern BC that would work without that law being amended. And it would need all of the work to achieve a new pipeline route. The southern option basically just means running pipe for the last stretch from Burnaby to Tsawassen. We may still see ugly legal fights there, but at least it’s a short stretch. That’ll still be some serious urban engineering in its own right.

That area is already mandatory pilotage.

Roberts Bank already takes really big container ships. Not sure if they are the largest in the world or how that compares to a VLCC.

If I understand right, VLCCs are heavier and deeper than the largest container ships. But I’m taking it as a given based on the proposal having been made that the project proponents have already assessed that VLCC can go there with a reasonable amount of infrastructure work.

 

[Kirkhill]

A lot of detail here

Massive Metro Vancouver oil terminal proposed for new Alberta pipeline | Daily Hive | Urbanized

This is the proposed route of the new West Coast oil pipeline between Alberta and Metro Vancouver, including a Roberts Bank export terminal.

dailyhive.com

A new 5 km causeway paralleling the existing Roberts Bank and Tsawassen Terminal infrastructure
640 acres of new land
2 VLCC carriers of 2,000,000 barrels apiece (one filling every 1 to 2 days depending on whether or not the Burnaby oil gets diverted to the new terminal)
15 on shore storage tanks.

 

[Kirkhill]

I mean, from an engineering standpoint could a subsea pipeline be run to Vancouver Island? Sure. But I don’t think Canada’s had a politician who smoked enough crack to seriously propose that since Doug Ford’s brother died.

I agree. Which is kind of my point. Lots of technical solutions are possible, some better than others. But the government of the day gets the final say and even approved projects have been killed

Cancelled expressways in Toronto - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Democracy in action.

And I consider myself a democrat in that sense.

 

[brihard]

A lot of detail here

Massive Metro Vancouver oil terminal proposed for new Alberta pipeline | Daily Hive | Urbanized

This is the proposed route of the new West Coast oil pipeline between Alberta and Metro Vancouver, including a Roberts Bank export terminal.

dailyhive.com

A new 5 km causeway paralleling the existing Roberts Bank and Tsawassen Terminal infrastructure
640 acres of new land
2 VLCC carriers of 2,000,000 barrels apiece (one filling every 1 to 2 days depending on whether or not the Burnaby oil gets diverted to the new terminal)
15 on shore storage tanks.

Thanks for that. Not sure why I had my head stuck on the pipeline running all the way to TMX Burnaby and then south rather than splitting off earlier. An earlier split probably makes lots of sense.

I didn’t think of the possibility of diverting all existing TMX flow to a single new terminal and closing Burrard… That would require double the pipe to Taawassen, and there’s some benefit in having the redundancy of the existing pipe and terminal in Burnaby. I don’t know how much doubling the pipe would add to costs. It would leave an empty 1m barrel a day pipe running to Burnaby, which seems like a major waste.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks for that. Not sure why I had my head stuck on the pipeline running all the way to TMX Burnaby and then south rather than splitting off earlier. An earlier split probably makes lots of sense.

I didn’t think of the possibility of diverting all existing TMX flow to a single new terminal and closing Burrard… That would require double the pipe to Taawassen, and there’s some benefit in having the redundancy of the existing pipe and terminal in Burnaby. I don’t know how much doubling the pipe would add to costs. It would leave an empty 1m barrel a day pipe running to Burnaby, which seems like a major waste.

I agree on the waste aspect and the notion of bypassing the Burnaby terminal is all my own work but driven by the observation of the sailing rate and the sheer size of the proposed terminal.

I seem to recall that one of the options under debate involved one of the current terminal operators (Parkland maybe?) selling up their operations and effectively abandoning a working facility. My memory may be failing me on that one.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It would leave an empty 1m barrel a day pipe running to Burnaby, which seems like a major waste.

There's a refinery at the end of that pipeline.