PART TWO OF THREE PARTSGreg Sr Craig Starts a new ConversationGreg Sr Craig
Hey Merv. Let's start over here. Now leave the military out of it this time. Focus on the issue man.
I'll say oil good, let's sell it to China, and you say.......Sheila Gunn
i say Arabian peninsula bad, Alberta good...and you say....?Sheila Gunn
I say Iran is crazy beans...Alberta is cool as a cucumber..and you say....?Merv Ritchie
Thanks Greg, I appreciate a real discussion.Merv Ritchie
I say, sell it anywhere we can after we fully refine it.Greg Sr Craig
Heat of passion, people get sidetracked.Greg Sr Craig
Wow Merv, that actually sounds like a reasonable comment. I do concur, but I can't pony up the billions to make it happen.Sheila Gunn
and that there is the truth of the matterGreg Sr Craig
So Merv, where do you stand on the pipeline, and why?Merv Ritchie
Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this. My stance on the pipeline was clearly and completely laid out in a previous thread. My presentation to the JRP explained all the economics and the environmental concerns. It is not fair to just provide a quick answer to this question but I will. Please consider reading the entire post on this here . . . http://www.terracedaily.ca/show8847a27s0x300y1z/MERV_RITCHIE_ON_ENBRIDGE_AND_THE_JOINT_REVIEW_PANEL
... The pipeline is a last resort. Canadians and the oil companies can market the product to an unlimited customer base by shipping the product by rail. A pipeline limits the sales to an exclusive and select few. Canada could set an entirely new standard for shipping this product. It will take political will but in a decade or two people will be wondering what took us so long.Greg Sr Craig
You know, you don't really sound that far out at all. How the hell did we get so far off track? Merv Ritchie
John and Sheila immediately called it "stupid and the name calling went on from there. I struggle not to join in. I enjoy intelligent debate but the internet forums usually degenerate into juvenile slandering. This is why this is the first forum I have joined onto in facebook in two years. I get tired of the juvenile behaviour. This issue is too important though to ignore.Merv Ritchie
As for funding it, all it would take is Stephen Harper to tell them to build it. If the politicians had backbone the companies would be jumping to build it so they could own the newest most modern refinery at the source of the largest reserves in North America. The profits would be astounding. The money was already set aside before the fall of 2008. That excuse, a market downturn, doesn't hold water anymore. All these major players build for the future, decades ahead, not due to a blip in the markets. Rio Tinto wouldn't build their new refinery in Kitimat if they counted on today’s or yesterdays prices. They are optimistic about tomorrow.Greg Sr Craig
WHo was going to build the refinery in Kitimat?
I know that the lasrgest refinery in Canada was set to double in size during that same time frame and it was kibashed when a partnersip between Irving and BP fell through.
And if Harper mandated it, would it not have to be an incentive laden mandate?Merv Ritchie
My mistake, I meant to say smelter. They import boxite from south asia and used the electricity from Kemana, south of Kitimat, to make aluminum.Merv Ritchie
I do not believe it would need to be mandated. Except maybe legislation prohibiting the export of the unrefined product. So I guess that is mandating. It is not like everyone would run from Canada. This is there oil reserves. Even if there was the suspicion the gov't might do that some companies would quickly put the plan on the fast track to get the jump on the rest. We need an energy security policy like Trudeau wanted to do. He may have done it wrong but it was the right idea.Blair Gott
Your starting to scare me when you mention trudeau Merv. Can remember my mother locking in her mortgage rate at 13 % and that was a deal ! Those were terrible times for Albertans.Merv Ritchie
Yup, banks didn't like him attempting to make Canada a sovereign and secure independent nation. By banks I do not mean Canadian Charter banks, I refer to the big boys like the Bank of International Settlements and others, the WTO and IMF puppet masters. It was and is those who make and break nations. The made it difficult to borrow money for everyone, not just your family, for the country too. These people do not like not being in complete control. As you may have read earlier, I believe Ezra is working for them, not you or me. He knows where his bread is buttered. This is an international game and we are being played against each other. Then win when we engage in internal conflict. Age old, divide and conquer game. DON'T ENGAGE! This is not some silly conspiracy theory either. It is just a fact of international finance.Greg Sr Craig
Well Merv, I think that your idea's have some merit. Of course nobody would trust the government to be in the refinery business. And the big guys aren't going to do it without some incentive.
Although perhaps the no refinery= no pipleline could be the incentve.Greg Sr Craig
I don't blame Trudeau , per se, for the run up in interest rates, that was a global phenomenom. The bank of Canada was allowed to run with it and perhaps he could have curtailed them, but like today, the PM stays out of the interest rates of the day.Merv Ritchie
After all I have read and heard, and I have heard it all, we video tape all the sessions, JRP, NEB, Enbridge etc etc, and if I were in Ms. Leggetts Chair, I would state firmly this product raw cannot be shipped via a pipeline. Firstly it requires to much importing of Condensate to thin it out and secondly the product is far too corrosive to the interior walls of the pipe. Raw it can be shipped by rail in sealed in tanks like above ground fuel tanks, double skinned and vacumn protected. I just see it all as common sense. I deman a refinery, that's all. A completely new fully capable refinery at the source. On another point - - - The tankers today fire up their engines on diesel. Then when everything is hot and they are away from land they switch to cheap bunker fuel. Raw completely unprocessed bitumen. A real CO2 puker once they get going. This is what spilled in New Zealand, the raw bitumen from their fuel holds. (It is called bunker fuel because on Coal fired vessels it was the coal bunker. the name just stuck.) I argue all fuel tanks must be the same. Rail car stackable, doubled skinned and vacumn protected. If a tanker runs aground the tanks can be lifted out of the stranded vessel. Currently the fuel lines run trough the keel, right at the bottom with the entire volumn in the tanks exposed to spillage. What lunacy! One good scrape on the bottom and raw bitumen spills everywhere. Of course ships never get scraped on the bottom! Why ae humans so foolish?Greg Sr Craig
Yes humans are foolish, but we're improving are we not? Far better off then we were 50 or 100 years ago.
Todays tankers are double hulled which is going to help minimize the risks of a Valdez. and Ithought that they are compartmentalized, but I could be wrong on that. I know that aircraft have their fuel cell bladders which are a lining, but I don't know if they do, or do not do that in ships.
The rail stacked cars are not a bad idea, but they would definitley increase the cost. Of couse if the demand is here, I guess they won't mind the increased cost.Blair Gott
Come on guy's, rail ? Have you not been watching the news ? Derailments all over the place. Greg, cant remember the year, 03 04, the bunker oil spill at wabamum, I was on that spill. I would argue that the pipeline is the safest form of transport. Location is a definate sore spot. Merv, does Terrace not want the jobs that go along with it ?
Friday at 8:02pm • Like • 3Merv Ritchie
One of the most common misconceptions is regarding the Exxon Valdez being a single hull. Although it was, where it hit the ground and leaked was from a portion of the hull which was double hulled. And further double hulled tankers present a unique corrosion issue which was clearly detailed by an engineer at the Kitamaat JRP session. Bladders is another great idea but it is not used today. Stackable rail cars presents an opportunity to bring the product anywhere, bring product in and ship product out. A tanker running aground or breaking up presents floating or sunken tanks to recover, no spillage. There will most certainly be resistance, serious outrage, protests by companies up and down North America. But for Canada, this is ideal, and for the world.Greg Sr Craig
Oh I don't believe that rail is the best way. I still believe that pipelines are the best, as that is how most bitumen is shipped now. No car accidents or train derailments with a pipeline.
But I believe that he was talking about once it's on the ship??Blair Gott
Summer of 2005. Very intense effort was made on that lake to save it. Happened on native reserve land as well, felt bad. Don't think rail is the answer unless it's a private line that can be maintained solely for the transport of bituman or other things of that nature. I don't want CN to hold that kind of responsibility.Blair Gott
Like the bladder idea.Blair Gott
Sorry guy's, thats Wabamun Lake.Greg Sr Craig
Maybe I was under a misconception that they used bladders on some of those oil tankers. Darn it, now I have to look it up.Merv Ritchie
Currently we import condensate (white gas) at the methanex facility in Kitimat. It is piped from the wharf to the tanks for loading into CN rail tanker cars. The track between Kitimat and Terrace (the switching yard), is terrible. When loaded cars traverse some sections the track literally sinks almost as if the entire bed is floating on muskeg. We have had no derailment tragedy yet but we have a derailment almost yearly. Here is a link (our site) to pictures of a derailment in 2009 on the Skeena. http://www.terracedaily.ca/cgi-bin/show_articles.cgi?ID=3782&TOPIC=0
Pictures of the tanker are included. No spill yet. It is why I suggest double skinned, vacumn protected cars. CN has done a lot to improve their main line to Prince Rupert where the largest container vessels in the world berth. In fact, the very largest Marsk, was built for this port.
Terrace Daily: Articleswww.terracedaily.caGreg Sr Craig
what do you have for pipelines going into kitimat/terrace area now?Merv Ritchie
Blair, I agree there are hazards, there are with all options. The pipeline and the raw product however is the worst option. As for jobs in Terace, this Enbridge proposal offers nothing to Terrace and only a few to Kitimat, maybe a couple dozen tops. We do have the space to set up a new tanker manufacturing facility, to fabricate the new stackable double skinned rail oil tanks. It is already completely serviced and has a rail siding too. This we would bend over backwards to accomodate. It is twenty acres, read to use. Lets do something for Canadians!Merv Ritchie
LNG, and the constant land slides continually break them. I have been here since 2006 and there has been two since then that I can quickly recall. The Enbridge proposal is for putting the pipe in the back country no one can access right now. When it is in a leak might not be discovered for months. A small leak is undetectable by their automated systems and there is simply no way someone could get into that region in the middle of winter. We live in a temperate rain forest. Just imagine the amount of snow a bit inland where it is colder. The word Kitimat means snow.Greg Sr Craig
I'm no pipeline expert, I know that automatic shutdown valves and isolation valves can be be installed, but I have no idea of how small a quantity can be detected.Merv Ritchie
Enbridge’s Control Centre has stated they cannot detect spills less then 174,000 litres per hour. Read an article on the details here. http://www.terracedaily.ca/show8719a27s0x300y1z/PREDICTING_THE_SPILL_WHICH_WILL_DESTROY_KITIMAT_TOURISMhttp://www.terracedaily.ca/show8719a27s0x300y1z/PREDICTING_THE_SPILL_WHICH_WILL_DESTROY_KITIMAT_TOURwww.terracedaily.caGreg Sr Craig
If rail traffic is unstable, perhaps Prince Rupert would be a better alternative?Merv Ritchie
Absolutely in regards to rail. If you saw the pics, the corner onto the bridge heading for Kitimat is a constant problem. And it is the rail bed south to Kitimat that is the unstable portion. Back in June 2009, Bruce Hill gave a great presentayion at Terrace City hall on Enbridge. And I quote, . . .“We are as tired as you must be of the same old ‘us against them’ conversation. And we are tired of not having processes in play where all the right players are at the table, where we can all seek out and support projects that are sustainable and get them built. Having said that, the Gateway Pipeline project is a monumentally bad project.” . . . Read it here if you want. http://www.terracedaily.ca/cgi-bin/show_articles.cgi?ID=4307&TOPIC=0
Terrace Daily: Articleswww.terracedaily.caGreg Sr Craig
I only speak as a proponent of the pipeline concept. I am in no way pretending that I am in anyway qualified to say Kitimat or Vancouver or Prince Rupert is the best route. Hopefully the safest route would be the one picked.
Do you know if the mandate of the JRP is to only approve the the process, or to suggest alternatives?Merv Ritchie
This was part of my presentation to them, moving "alternatives" up to the forefront of their deliberations. I stated; " 1826. On the subject of topics of consideration - not listed in the Draft List of Issues but it is listed in the third page in the addendum under part 3 as alternatives. On the subject of alternatives, I’m here to explain why I believe alternatives to the transportation of the product must be accentuated on the agenda. " and I concluded this discussion with; " 1846. Again, I’m a simple layman. I can offer potential solutions to meet various concerns and provide alternatives. It is my considered opinion that the Joint Review Panel should open-up the discussion to professionals, both much smarter than I, to offer alternatives to the current proposal in front of the JRP today, not leave this as an end-note to an end-note. "Chuck Rockwell
For all Canadians, I hope the best solution for all is achieved. Environment, Economy, and the People of this Country.