Ignatieff wants to ban oil tankers off BC coast

[notyoueither]

I'll bet you float.

Burn him! Burn the witch!

[Asher]

For those that don't know, this is why the ban is a big deal:

The Enbridge Gateway Pipeline project proposes a 1,170 kilometre pipeline to ship an average of 525,000 barrels of tar sands bitumen per day from Fort McMurray to Kitimat B.C. Approximately 225 oil tankers per year would then ship the tar sands product to Asia and California. An adjacent pipeline would move 193,000 barrels of "condensate" east from Kitimat to Fort McMurray (also known as diluent, the condensate is mostly imported from Russia and is necessary to keep the thick tar moving through the piping systems. Tankers are already bringing diluent to Kitimat, where it is now being sent to Alberta by train).

[notyoueither]

I'd like to know more about this.

Oil tankers have been moving through southern coastal waters for a half century, carrying oil from a Kinder Morgan pipeline terminal in Burnaby at Burrard Inlet without a major spill.


Kinder Morgan contends in letter to the NEB that their own plans for pipeline expansion to their Burnaby terminal render Enbridge's project superfluous.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sigh, Enbridge is closer to both China and to the Patch.

It's a good deal for a rather economically moribund area of the province, plus it increases traffic to Rupert. I'd be surprised if anyone associated with the Port of Vancouver were in favour of it's construction.

Thanks for the post, Asher. I really hope Enbridge goes through. It was an issue in the last provincial election, at least in the northern ridings.

[Wezil]

The Enbridge Gateway Pipeline project proposes a 1,170 kilometre pipeline to ship an average of 525,000 barrels of tar sands bitumen per day from Fort McMurray to Kitimat B.C. Approximately 225 oil tankers per year would then ship the tar sands product to Asia and California. An adjacent pipeline would move 193,000 barrels of "condensate" east from Kitimat to Fort McMurray (also known as diluent, the condensate is mostly imported from Russia and is necessary to keep the thick tar moving through the piping systems. Tankers are already bringing diluent to Kitimat, where it is now being sent to Alberta by train).

Didn't they get the memo?

[Asher]

The source of that quote is a ridiculously slanted left-wing website.

[Wezil]

For the record - I'm against any AB to BC oil pipelines. A pipeline direct from AB to ON would be acceptable.

[Asher]

For the record - I'm against any AB to BC oil pipelines. A pipeline direct from AB to ON would be acceptable.

[Wezil]

Why can't the pipeline go further south to a port not considered so sensitive? Cost?

[Asher]

International pipelines are massive headaches. And much more expensive.

[Wezil]

I'm thinking somewhere closer to Vancouver.

[Asher]

Vancouver still is the BC coast, no?

[Wezil]

Sure, but as I understand it the big issue is with tanker travel further up the coast.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why can't the pipeline go further south to a port not considered so sensitive? Cost?

BC's terrain doesn't really permit a N/S Pipeline. Easier to supply Vancouver from the south than it is to supply them from the north.

A west-east pipeline as Enbridge has proposed is far easier to lay down and shortens the pipeline distance from the Patch to China and the Far East substantially.

Heck, they wanted the Railroad through here, not through southern BC which is ridiculously difficult to travel across.

[Wezil]

I wasn't talking to you Ben.



Asher -

Think of the benefits to my AB-ON proposal. A Sarnia terminus(?) for the pipeline would be ideal.

1) Cheaper as you won't have mountains to contend with.
2) If a leak occurs midway there would be hardly anyone to notice.
3) If a leak occurs at Sarnia no one would notice.
4) It brings the oil directly to ON and saves us the bother of electing federal Liberals to do it for us.

Where's the downside?