Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline - Pro's and Con's
- Thread starter tincan
- Start date
Englishman
Well-Known Member
Dave,
You can obtain decals to stick on loonies from these guys:
http://dogwoodinitiative.org/no-tankers
Don't know where you can get bumper stickers and such from yet, but I will be looking for those too. Meanwhile, keeping the letter writing pressure on all local MLA's and MP's plus all the local and province wide papers probably reaches a wider audience.
For communication purposes, you can also try sending the links I posted above to everyone on your e-mail contact list.........
tincan
Well-Known Member
Here is another NEW report Robyn Allan just recently put out a few days ago - http://www.robynallan.com/wp-conten...s-and-Tanker-Spill-Risk-for-BC-May-6-2012.pdf
Excerpt from her website:
British Columbians have been told the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and Marine Terminal represents 220 tankers a year when it could be upwards of 340 per year.
We’ve been told that twinning Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain means a tanker a day in Vancouver’s inner harbour, when its possible the project could represent upwards of 475 oil tankers a year.
Taken together the two projects could expose BC to 2 million barrels of crude oil a day by land, and around 800 tankers a year transiting vulnerable coastal waters.
I have prepared an 11 page report–Proposed Pipelines and Tanker Spill Risk for BC–explaining how this could occur if Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan proceed.
If, after reviewing the report, you are concerned about the volume of crude oil and condensate planned for transport across BC’s and First Nations’ land, freshwater streams and coastal waters, please let Premier Clark know. Please ask her to take back BC’s sovereign right to conduct a meaningful environmental assessment and have the final decision making power as to whether Northern Gateway proceeds or not.
Premier Clark’s email address is premier@gov.bc.ca
Excerpt from her website:
British Columbians have been told the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and Marine Terminal represents 220 tankers a year when it could be upwards of 340 per year.
We’ve been told that twinning Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain means a tanker a day in Vancouver’s inner harbour, when its possible the project could represent upwards of 475 oil tankers a year.
Taken together the two projects could expose BC to 2 million barrels of crude oil a day by land, and around 800 tankers a year transiting vulnerable coastal waters.
I have prepared an 11 page report–Proposed Pipelines and Tanker Spill Risk for BC–explaining how this could occur if Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan proceed.
If, after reviewing the report, you are concerned about the volume of crude oil and condensate planned for transport across BC’s and First Nations’ land, freshwater streams and coastal waters, please let Premier Clark know. Please ask her to take back BC’s sovereign right to conduct a meaningful environmental assessment and have the final decision making power as to whether Northern Gateway proceeds or not.
Premier Clark’s email address is premier@gov.bc.ca
Gunsmith
Well-Known Member
This is why I believe in having the right information, if they are going to distort information they will lose in the long run, I do not support the pipeliner's quest in shipping oil through sensitive areas but also do not support mis information. When governments and corporations try to B/S me they lost any chance of credibility with me.
I have voiced my concerns and have raised a few eyebrows in this area, but what is being done is damaging very sensitive ares that cannot be fixed in our lifetimes.
I have voiced my concerns and have raised a few eyebrows in this area, but what is being done is damaging very sensitive ares that cannot be fixed in our lifetimes.
GLG
Well-Known Member
So with this pipeline has come an attack on NGO's that think this pipeline project stinks.
The current government has even set aside 8 million dollars in this years budget to audit them.
I think Harper is doing what ever he can to silence the opposition to this pipeline.
However it has been noticed by another level of government, the senate.
I have been following the debate and maybe we might get the truth behind all this.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/Sen/Chamber/411/Debates/076db_2012-05-08-e.htm#44
Some back ground behind this motion.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/Sen/Chamber/411/Debates/069db_2012-04-05-e.htm#26
Funny I thought those guy's just sat around and drank coffee all day.
GLG
The current government has even set aside 8 million dollars in this years budget to audit them.
I think Harper is doing what ever he can to silence the opposition to this pipeline.
However it has been noticed by another level of government, the senate.
I have been following the debate and maybe we might get the truth behind all this.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/Sen/Chamber/411/Debates/076db_2012-05-08-e.htm#44
Some back ground behind this motion.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/Sen/Chamber/411/Debates/069db_2012-04-05-e.htm#26
Funny I thought those guy's just sat around and drank coffee all day.
GLG
Dave S
Active Member
Hey English, thanks for the link. I picked up a package from Dogwood yesterday and I am slapping a sticker on every loonie that hits my pocket. I still am searching for a larger sticker that my dad can place on his bike, helmet, jersey and be seen easily. Might look at getting some printed on my own.
Cheers,
Dave
Last edited by a moderator:
bushwackin
Member
Just ordered 525 Looney stickers from Dogwood. The kids are looking forward to sticking them all to the loonies!
Dave S
Active Member
Guess I should explain that my pops always does The Ride to Conquer Cancer but it is now the Enbridge Ride to Conquer Cancer. I have agreed to support him and his cause if he is willing to use his ride to show his opinion on Enbridge and the pipeline. He is also going to present a letter to the president of BC Cancer Foundation, who he happens to know, in hopes that BCCF reconsiders the future relationship with Enbridge.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html?_r=1
and another, lots of discussion today:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76130.html
unfortunately, our leadership does not have the guts to take the correct stance. enter romney, game, set, match, will make harper look like a bush leager!
and another, lots of discussion today:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76130.html
unfortunately, our leadership does not have the guts to take the correct stance. enter romney, game, set, match, will make harper look like a bush leager!
Last edited by a moderator:
Gunsmith
Well-Known Member
I do not approve either pipeline but if you believe that shutting down just the tarsands is going to stop this you are delusional. Coal fired generation stations all over the world would have to be shut down to make any dent, yet everyone is focussed on tarsands. The people of the world have to get their heads out of their asses and start shutting down these plants also. There is way too much reliance on CHEAP electricity. I will be doing my part by going off the grid when I build a new small house as I will be using wind power and supplying my own needs.
Charlie
Well-Known Member
Jim Patterson might disagree with you, as his company refers to coal as:
Clean Energy Solutions
Energy (or thermal) coal is the world's most abundant and cheapest source of fuel for power generation. It holds the best hope of reducing world poverty by producing inexpensive and safe electricity. As the world moves to a more environmentally friendly and reliable power source, coal remains the number one energy provider.
Coking (or metallurgical) coal is the principal ingredient in the production of steel through the blast furnace method,and makes up the majority of the coal handled by Westshore. Westshore loads ships bound for the major steel-making countries around the globe. Over the last five years, China has continued to double its consumption of metallurgical coal for its steel making mills annually,producing a record 700 million tonnes of steel in 2011.
Overall in 2011, Westshore moved a record 27.3 million tonnes of coal,up from its previous record of 24.7 million tonnes in 2010. This improved performance has come through expansive equipment upgrades over the past five years. Our first three-year, $47 million project was completed in 2010 and increased Westshore's nominal annual coal throughput capacity from 24 to 29 million tonnes. This phase added a replacement dumper barrel in the coal unloading station, as well as new conveyors and ancillary equipment and a fourth new highly efficient. state-of-the-art stacker-reclaimer.
A second, $53 million project is underway to replace an old single rotary dumper and add a second twin set dumper,available for train unloading. To speed the unloading process.
Westshore is also adding three coal car positioners to the dumper station,including two exit positioners for the first time, which will speed up the dumping cycle. The positioners move the train through the dumper under Westshore's control. The two oldest stackerreclaimers on site have been upgraded, and four of the seven conveyor transfer chutes are being redesigned and replaced. This second major capital project is expected to be completed late in 2012 and will take Westshore's capacity from 29 to an estimated 33 million tonnes a year.
Coal from the United States Powder River Basin is being exported through Westshore at record levels, exceeding 8 million tonnes in 2011.
Westshore's future has never been brighter, with the most bullish coal market in the past 30 years. With this in mind, Westshore has signed long-term contracts with its major customers - Teck Coal and Grande Cache Coal in Canada, as well as Signal Peak and Cloud Peak in the United States Powder River Basin in Montana-to ensure security of supply well into the future.Evolving coal mine developments in Alberta and northeastern British Columbia are expected to add demand for increased ship loading capabilities.
Westshore has an experienced and reliable workforce of over 200 full-time employees who are engaged with our plans to modernize our plant and site to take advantage of what promises to be a very bright future.
http://www.jimpattison.com/export-financial/westshore-terminals.aspx
Sorry, just couldn’t resist!
Clean Energy Solutions
Energy (or thermal) coal is the world's most abundant and cheapest source of fuel for power generation. It holds the best hope of reducing world poverty by producing inexpensive and safe electricity. As the world moves to a more environmentally friendly and reliable power source, coal remains the number one energy provider.
Coking (or metallurgical) coal is the principal ingredient in the production of steel through the blast furnace method,and makes up the majority of the coal handled by Westshore. Westshore loads ships bound for the major steel-making countries around the globe. Over the last five years, China has continued to double its consumption of metallurgical coal for its steel making mills annually,producing a record 700 million tonnes of steel in 2011.
Overall in 2011, Westshore moved a record 27.3 million tonnes of coal,up from its previous record of 24.7 million tonnes in 2010. This improved performance has come through expansive equipment upgrades over the past five years. Our first three-year, $47 million project was completed in 2010 and increased Westshore's nominal annual coal throughput capacity from 24 to 29 million tonnes. This phase added a replacement dumper barrel in the coal unloading station, as well as new conveyors and ancillary equipment and a fourth new highly efficient. state-of-the-art stacker-reclaimer.
A second, $53 million project is underway to replace an old single rotary dumper and add a second twin set dumper,available for train unloading. To speed the unloading process.
Westshore is also adding three coal car positioners to the dumper station,including two exit positioners for the first time, which will speed up the dumping cycle. The positioners move the train through the dumper under Westshore's control. The two oldest stackerreclaimers on site have been upgraded, and four of the seven conveyor transfer chutes are being redesigned and replaced. This second major capital project is expected to be completed late in 2012 and will take Westshore's capacity from 29 to an estimated 33 million tonnes a year.
Coal from the United States Powder River Basin is being exported through Westshore at record levels, exceeding 8 million tonnes in 2011.
Westshore's future has never been brighter, with the most bullish coal market in the past 30 years. With this in mind, Westshore has signed long-term contracts with its major customers - Teck Coal and Grande Cache Coal in Canada, as well as Signal Peak and Cloud Peak in the United States Powder River Basin in Montana-to ensure security of supply well into the future.Evolving coal mine developments in Alberta and northeastern British Columbia are expected to add demand for increased ship loading capabilities.
Westshore has an experienced and reliable workforce of over 200 full-time employees who are engaged with our plans to modernize our plant and site to take advantage of what promises to be a very bright future.
http://www.jimpattison.com/export-financial/westshore-terminals.aspx
Sorry, just couldn’t resist!
Gunsmith
Well-Known Member
I can't blame you for that Charlie. I did a little research and this what I came up with. 23 g of coal burned produces 44g of Co2 which is a factor of 1.91 to 1. Pattison claims tonnes shipped in 25 yrs is 675,000,000 tons. That multiplied by 1.91 = 1,289,250,000 tons of Co2. A little blip so they say. Clean Co2 he says.
The US alone produces 35% of the worlds coal 2,362,500,000 tons. More than half of electric power produced in the states is produced from burning coal. 3.8 tons per person per year. Co2 from coal produced per year = 4,512,375,000 tons yr. Coal burned per person to produce power = 14,516 tons of Co2 per yr.
The state of Texas consumes 100,000,000 tons per yr. Ontario canada buys coal from the US to produce electricity, do the numbers on Canada you will find just as bad or worse numbers, go to Europe and you will find the same ****. To me I can't fathom why the blame seems to lie on the Tarsands back while coal is happily smoking out stacks that are getting higher and higher. Tarsands is not the only culprit in this equation, albeit they are trying to get their foot in the door a big way.
My point is while big attention is focused on tarsands the just as big criminal plays on.
I have accrued the information through Google.
When the coal burns, it gives off sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide, among other gases. The sulfur particulates are partly removed with scrubbers or filters. Scrubbers use a wet limestone slurry to absorb sulfur as it passes though. Filters are large cloth bags that catch particles as they go through the cloth. Scrubbers are more common, and can reduce sulfur emissions by up to 90 percent, when working properly. Still, smaller particulates are less likely to be absorbed by the limestone, and can pass out the smokestack into the air.
Another type of coal plant uses "fluidized bed combustion" instead of a standard furnace. A fluidized bed is made up of small particles of ash, limestone and other non-flammable materials, which are partially suspended in an upward flow of hot air. Powderized coal and limestone are blown into the bed at high temperature. They burn in the bed, and the limestone binds with sulfur released from the coal. The heat then boils water in pipes which completes the Rankine Cycle. The advantage of fluidized bed combustion is that sulfur emissions are lower than in standard coal plants. The down side is that the plants are more complex and require more maintenance.
Sulfur control methods like scrubbers, fluidized bed combustors and switching to low-sulfur coal reduced sulfur emissions by 33 percent between 1975 and 1990, even while coal use increased by 50 percent. Nitrogen oxide emissions have stayed pretty much the same over this period. Carbon dioxide emissions, which can't be removed from the plant's exhaust, have risen with coal use however.
Coal provides just over half of the electricity produced in the US.
A Case Study: The Side Effects of a Coal Plant
A 500 megawatt coal plant produces 3.5 billion kilowatt-hours per year, enough to power a city of about 140,000 people. It burns 1,430,000 tons of coal, uses 2.2 billion gallons of water and 146,000 tons of limestone.
It also puts out, each year:
10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide (SOx) is the main cause of acid rain, which damages forests, lakes and buildings.
10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide. Nitrogen oxide (NOx) is a major cause of smog, and also a cause of acid rain.
3.7 million tons of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main greenhouse gas, and is the leading cause of global warming. There are no regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S.
500 tons of small particles. Small particulates are a health hazard, causing lung damage. Particulates smaller than 10 microns are not regulated, but may be soon.
220 tons of hydrocarbons. Fossil fuels are made of hydrocarbons; when they don't burn completely, they are released into the air. They are a cause of smog.
720 tons of carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a poisonous gas and contributor to global warming.
125,000 tons of ash and 193,000 tons of sludge from the smokestack scrubber. A scrubber uses powdered limestone and water to remove pollution from the plant's exhaust. Instead of going into the air, the pollution goes into a landfill or into products like concrete and drywall. This ash and sludge consists of coal ash, limestone, and many pollutants, such as toxic metals like lead and mercury.
225 pounds of arsenic, 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, and many other toxic heavy metals. Mercury emissions from coal plants are suspected of contaminating lakes and rivers in northern and northeast states and Canada. In Wisconsin alone, more than 200 lakes and rivers are contaminated with mercury. Health officials warn against eating fish caught in these waters, since mercury can cause birth defects, brain damage and other ailments. Acid rain also causes mercury poisoning by leaching mercury from rocks and making it available in a form that can be taken up by organisms.
Trace elements of uranium. All but 16 of the 92 naturally occurring elements have been detected in coal, mostly as trace elements below 0.1 percent (1,000 parts per million, or ppm). A study by DOE's Oak Ridge National Lab found that radioactive emissions from coal combustion are greater than those from nuclear power production.
The 2.2 billion gallons of water it uses for cooling is raised 16 degrees F on average before being discharged into a lake or river. By warming the water year-round it changes the habitat of that body of water.
Coal mining creates tons of hazardous and acidic waste which can contaminate ground water. Strip mining also destroys habitat and can affect water tables. Underground mining is a hazard to water quality and to coal miners. In the mid-1970s, the fatality rate for underground miners was 0.4 per million tons of coal -- one miner would be killed every two years to supply our 500 MW plant. The disabling injury rate was 38 people per million tons -- 106 miners would be disabled every two years to supply this plant. Since coal mining is much more automated now, there are many fewer coal miners, and thus many fewer deaths and injuries.
Transportation of coal is typically by rail and barge; much coal now comes from the coal basins of Wyoming and the West. Injuries from coal transportation (such as at train crossing accidents) are estimated to cause 450 deaths and 6800 injuries per year. Transporting enough coal to supply just this one 500 MW plant requires 14,300 train cars. That's 40 cars of coal per day.
The US alone produces 35% of the worlds coal 2,362,500,000 tons. More than half of electric power produced in the states is produced from burning coal. 3.8 tons per person per year. Co2 from coal produced per year = 4,512,375,000 tons yr. Coal burned per person to produce power = 14,516 tons of Co2 per yr.
The state of Texas consumes 100,000,000 tons per yr. Ontario canada buys coal from the US to produce electricity, do the numbers on Canada you will find just as bad or worse numbers, go to Europe and you will find the same ****. To me I can't fathom why the blame seems to lie on the Tarsands back while coal is happily smoking out stacks that are getting higher and higher. Tarsands is not the only culprit in this equation, albeit they are trying to get their foot in the door a big way.
My point is while big attention is focused on tarsands the just as big criminal plays on.
I have accrued the information through Google.
When the coal burns, it gives off sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide, among other gases. The sulfur particulates are partly removed with scrubbers or filters. Scrubbers use a wet limestone slurry to absorb sulfur as it passes though. Filters are large cloth bags that catch particles as they go through the cloth. Scrubbers are more common, and can reduce sulfur emissions by up to 90 percent, when working properly. Still, smaller particulates are less likely to be absorbed by the limestone, and can pass out the smokestack into the air.
Another type of coal plant uses "fluidized bed combustion" instead of a standard furnace. A fluidized bed is made up of small particles of ash, limestone and other non-flammable materials, which are partially suspended in an upward flow of hot air. Powderized coal and limestone are blown into the bed at high temperature. They burn in the bed, and the limestone binds with sulfur released from the coal. The heat then boils water in pipes which completes the Rankine Cycle. The advantage of fluidized bed combustion is that sulfur emissions are lower than in standard coal plants. The down side is that the plants are more complex and require more maintenance.
Sulfur control methods like scrubbers, fluidized bed combustors and switching to low-sulfur coal reduced sulfur emissions by 33 percent between 1975 and 1990, even while coal use increased by 50 percent. Nitrogen oxide emissions have stayed pretty much the same over this period. Carbon dioxide emissions, which can't be removed from the plant's exhaust, have risen with coal use however.
Coal provides just over half of the electricity produced in the US.
A Case Study: The Side Effects of a Coal Plant
A 500 megawatt coal plant produces 3.5 billion kilowatt-hours per year, enough to power a city of about 140,000 people. It burns 1,430,000 tons of coal, uses 2.2 billion gallons of water and 146,000 tons of limestone.
It also puts out, each year:
10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide (SOx) is the main cause of acid rain, which damages forests, lakes and buildings.
10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide. Nitrogen oxide (NOx) is a major cause of smog, and also a cause of acid rain.
3.7 million tons of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main greenhouse gas, and is the leading cause of global warming. There are no regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S.
500 tons of small particles. Small particulates are a health hazard, causing lung damage. Particulates smaller than 10 microns are not regulated, but may be soon.
220 tons of hydrocarbons. Fossil fuels are made of hydrocarbons; when they don't burn completely, they are released into the air. They are a cause of smog.
720 tons of carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a poisonous gas and contributor to global warming.
125,000 tons of ash and 193,000 tons of sludge from the smokestack scrubber. A scrubber uses powdered limestone and water to remove pollution from the plant's exhaust. Instead of going into the air, the pollution goes into a landfill or into products like concrete and drywall. This ash and sludge consists of coal ash, limestone, and many pollutants, such as toxic metals like lead and mercury.
225 pounds of arsenic, 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, and many other toxic heavy metals. Mercury emissions from coal plants are suspected of contaminating lakes and rivers in northern and northeast states and Canada. In Wisconsin alone, more than 200 lakes and rivers are contaminated with mercury. Health officials warn against eating fish caught in these waters, since mercury can cause birth defects, brain damage and other ailments. Acid rain also causes mercury poisoning by leaching mercury from rocks and making it available in a form that can be taken up by organisms.
Trace elements of uranium. All but 16 of the 92 naturally occurring elements have been detected in coal, mostly as trace elements below 0.1 percent (1,000 parts per million, or ppm). A study by DOE's Oak Ridge National Lab found that radioactive emissions from coal combustion are greater than those from nuclear power production.
The 2.2 billion gallons of water it uses for cooling is raised 16 degrees F on average before being discharged into a lake or river. By warming the water year-round it changes the habitat of that body of water.
Coal mining creates tons of hazardous and acidic waste which can contaminate ground water. Strip mining also destroys habitat and can affect water tables. Underground mining is a hazard to water quality and to coal miners. In the mid-1970s, the fatality rate for underground miners was 0.4 per million tons of coal -- one miner would be killed every two years to supply our 500 MW plant. The disabling injury rate was 38 people per million tons -- 106 miners would be disabled every two years to supply this plant. Since coal mining is much more automated now, there are many fewer coal miners, and thus many fewer deaths and injuries.
Transportation of coal is typically by rail and barge; much coal now comes from the coal basins of Wyoming and the West. Injuries from coal transportation (such as at train crossing accidents) are estimated to cause 450 deaths and 6800 injuries per year. Transporting enough coal to supply just this one 500 MW plant requires 14,300 train cars. That's 40 cars of coal per day.
Jim Patterson might disagree with you, as his company refers to coal as:
Clean Energy Solutions
Energy (or thermal) coal is the world's most abundant and cheapest source of fuel for power generation. It holds the best hope of reducing world poverty by producing inexpensive and safe electricity. As the world moves to a more environmentally friendly and reliable power source, coal remains the number one energy provider.
Coking (or metallurgical) coal is the principal ingredient in the production of steel through the blast furnace method,and makes up the majority of the coal handled by Westshore. Westshore loads ships bound for the major steel-making countries around the globe. Over the last five years, China has continued to double its consumption of metallurgical coal for its steel making mills annually,producing a record 700 million tonnes of steel in 2011.
Overall in 2011, Westshore moved a record 27.3 million tonnes of coal,up from its previous record of 24.7 million tonnes in 2010. This improved performance has come through expansive equipment upgrades over the past five years. Our first three-year, $47 million project was completed in 2010 and increased Westshore's nominal annual coal throughput capacity from 24 to 29 million tonnes. This phase added a replacement dumper barrel in the coal unloading station, as well as new conveyors and ancillary equipment and a fourth new highly efficient. state-of-the-art stacker-reclaimer.
A second, $53 million project is underway to replace an old single rotary dumper and add a second twin set dumper,available for train unloading. To speed the unloading process.
Westshore is also adding three coal car positioners to the dumper station,including two exit positioners for the first time, which will speed up the dumping cycle. The positioners move the train through the dumper under Westshore's control. The two oldest stackerreclaimers on site have been upgraded, and four of the seven conveyor transfer chutes are being redesigned and replaced. This second major capital project is expected to be completed late in 2012 and will take Westshore's capacity from 29 to an estimated 33 million tonnes a year.
Coal from the United States Powder River Basin is being exported through Westshore at record levels, exceeding 8 million tonnes in 2011.
Westshore's future has never been brighter, with the most bullish coal market in the past 30 years. With this in mind, Westshore has signed long-term contracts with its major customers - Teck Coal and Grande Cache Coal in Canada, as well as Signal Peak and Cloud Peak in the United States Powder River Basin in Montana-to ensure security of supply well into the future.Evolving coal mine developments in Alberta and northeastern British Columbia are expected to add demand for increased ship loading capabilities.
Westshore has an experienced and reliable workforce of over 200 full-time employees who are engaged with our plans to modernize our plant and site to take advantage of what promises to be a very bright future.
http://www.jimpattison.com/export-financial/westshore-terminals.aspx
Sorry, just couldn’t resist!
two years ago we drove right up central wyoming from the colorado line to the montana line. all you could see were endless coal trains. thousands of hopper cars full of coal. right next to the coal plants we could see from the interstate, wind turbines with feathered props, thousands of them. in the mean time, you could literally see the effulent from the coal generating plants in the atmosphere. its not that alternative energy is not available, it is not being used. that was the astonishinig part of these observations so i started looking at literally the thousands of wind turbines on that trip in multiple states, idle in place.
cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
Thought this thread was about the NGP. Good info for sure but seems like it has become a prime example of the pot is calling the kettle black to me.
How about this; Convert coal plants to burn bitumen from the tar sands with a goal of eventually re-converting them to natural gas (the most abundant fossil fuel in North America) until such time as enough renewable energy generators are available to come online.
Ergo, no NGP.
How about this; Convert coal plants to burn bitumen from the tar sands with a goal of eventually re-converting them to natural gas (the most abundant fossil fuel in North America) until such time as enough renewable energy generators are available to come online.
Ergo, no NGP.
GLG
Well-Known Member
TransCanada mulls switching natural gas mainline to oil service
http://business.financialpost.com/2...l-gas-mainline-to-oil-service/?__lsa=d7c08e58
CALGARY — TransCanada Corp. said it’s taking a serious look at converting its underused mainline, Canada’s largest natural gas pipeline, to oil service, a prospect that would give a big boost to the idea of a Canadian solution to anti-oil sands activism by shipping more of Canada’s Western oil to Eastern consumers.
CEO Russ Girling said Friday refiners in Eastern Canada and oil producers in Western Canada are keen on the concept and have asked TransCanada to look into the feasibility of converting parts of the system.
“We are going to actively pursue it and see if we can turn it into an opportunity for both, the oil and gas industry and TransCanada,” Mr. Girling told reporters after addressing the company’s annual meeting.
The giant pipeline is TransCanada’s original business and is one of Canada’s nation-building infrastructures. For decades, it is has moved natural gas from Empress, Alta., down to the U.S. northeast and into Ontario and Quebec.
But the pipeline is running at half capacity because of the discovery of big new shale gas deposits such as the giant Marcellus in the United States that are pushing new supplies into the pipeline’s historic market. The new supplies are so abundant they have depressed natural gas prices to decade-low levels, while pushing up transmission costs for producers and customers.
Disputes over who should pay for the underused, regulated infrastructure will land before the National Energy Board on June 4. A hearing into changing the structure of the system as well as tolls for 2012 and 2013 is expected to last until September.
If technically feasible, the conversion would be nation-building in new ways.
The pipeline could potentially carry between 300,000 barrels a day and 800,000 b/d, Mr. Girling estimated, making it a significant channel for growing oil sands production in Alberta that risks being stranded as a result of activists opposing new pipeline plans to the United States and to Canada’s West Coast.
TransCanada’s own proposed Keystone XL from Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast has been one of the targets. Enbridge Inc.’s Northern Gateway from Alberta to Kitimat in British Columbia is also being opposed, and pushback has started against an expansion of the Trans Mountain line between Edmonton and Vancouver proposed by Kinder Morgan Canada.
While there has been increasing talk of pushing more Western Canadian oil to the East in recent months, it has been undermined by limited oil pipeline capacity.
A conversion of the mainline would benefit Eastern Canadian markets by increasing their energy security. They are now supplied by offshore oil at world oil prices. Meanwhile, Western Canadian oil is selling at deep discounts in the U.S. because of lack of pipeline capacity.
“It would be a win for the oil industry and could be a win for TransCanada,” said Edward Kallio, director of gas consulting at Ziff Energy Group in Calgary.
“With 2.2 million barrels of oil coming online between now and 2020, we’ll need Gateway, the Trans Mountain Expansion, and the Keystone pipeline,” he said. “With issues relating to Gateway and Keystone, a TCPL conversion is very much Plan B, and could become Plan A if these issues are not resolved.”
Natural gas customers who are now relying on supply from the West would have to find new sources.
TransCanada would have to sort out the technical issues of converting a pipeline from gas to oil, relating primarily to maintaining pipeline integrity.
But the obstacles don’t seem insurmountable.
Mr. Girling said the company learned a lot when it undertook a similar pipeline conversion from gas to oil as part of the first phase of Keystone, which is now in service and moving more than 500,000 b/d to the U.S.
“So the questions is: ‘Can we do that in a way that makes sense for everybody, for our gas shippers and for our oil shippers.’ And that is the conversation we have going on right now … at the 30,000-foot level, it seems to make sense,” he said.
Must be having some effect if the big oil's are looking at this rather then tankers on the coast.
GLG
http://business.financialpost.com/2...l-gas-mainline-to-oil-service/?__lsa=d7c08e58
CALGARY — TransCanada Corp. said it’s taking a serious look at converting its underused mainline, Canada’s largest natural gas pipeline, to oil service, a prospect that would give a big boost to the idea of a Canadian solution to anti-oil sands activism by shipping more of Canada’s Western oil to Eastern consumers.
CEO Russ Girling said Friday refiners in Eastern Canada and oil producers in Western Canada are keen on the concept and have asked TransCanada to look into the feasibility of converting parts of the system.
“We are going to actively pursue it and see if we can turn it into an opportunity for both, the oil and gas industry and TransCanada,” Mr. Girling told reporters after addressing the company’s annual meeting.
The giant pipeline is TransCanada’s original business and is one of Canada’s nation-building infrastructures. For decades, it is has moved natural gas from Empress, Alta., down to the U.S. northeast and into Ontario and Quebec.
But the pipeline is running at half capacity because of the discovery of big new shale gas deposits such as the giant Marcellus in the United States that are pushing new supplies into the pipeline’s historic market. The new supplies are so abundant they have depressed natural gas prices to decade-low levels, while pushing up transmission costs for producers and customers.
Disputes over who should pay for the underused, regulated infrastructure will land before the National Energy Board on June 4. A hearing into changing the structure of the system as well as tolls for 2012 and 2013 is expected to last until September.
If technically feasible, the conversion would be nation-building in new ways.
The pipeline could potentially carry between 300,000 barrels a day and 800,000 b/d, Mr. Girling estimated, making it a significant channel for growing oil sands production in Alberta that risks being stranded as a result of activists opposing new pipeline plans to the United States and to Canada’s West Coast.
TransCanada’s own proposed Keystone XL from Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast has been one of the targets. Enbridge Inc.’s Northern Gateway from Alberta to Kitimat in British Columbia is also being opposed, and pushback has started against an expansion of the Trans Mountain line between Edmonton and Vancouver proposed by Kinder Morgan Canada.
While there has been increasing talk of pushing more Western Canadian oil to the East in recent months, it has been undermined by limited oil pipeline capacity.
A conversion of the mainline would benefit Eastern Canadian markets by increasing their energy security. They are now supplied by offshore oil at world oil prices. Meanwhile, Western Canadian oil is selling at deep discounts in the U.S. because of lack of pipeline capacity.
“It would be a win for the oil industry and could be a win for TransCanada,” said Edward Kallio, director of gas consulting at Ziff Energy Group in Calgary.
“With 2.2 million barrels of oil coming online between now and 2020, we’ll need Gateway, the Trans Mountain Expansion, and the Keystone pipeline,” he said. “With issues relating to Gateway and Keystone, a TCPL conversion is very much Plan B, and could become Plan A if these issues are not resolved.”
Natural gas customers who are now relying on supply from the West would have to find new sources.
TransCanada would have to sort out the technical issues of converting a pipeline from gas to oil, relating primarily to maintaining pipeline integrity.
But the obstacles don’t seem insurmountable.
Mr. Girling said the company learned a lot when it undertook a similar pipeline conversion from gas to oil as part of the first phase of Keystone, which is now in service and moving more than 500,000 b/d to the U.S.
“So the questions is: ‘Can we do that in a way that makes sense for everybody, for our gas shippers and for our oil shippers.’ And that is the conversation we have going on right now … at the 30,000-foot level, it seems to make sense,” he said.
Must be having some effect if the big oil's are looking at this rather then tankers on the coast.
GLG
tincan
Well-Known Member
I would much prefer to start using more natural gas as opposed to converting nat gas pipelines to handle bitumen/crude but I also prefer that we keep our oil/tar in Canada and ship it east where we are currently importing the majority of it from overseas. Thanks for the article GLG!
Gunsmith
Well-Known Member
Again with gas prices at a low why are they doing the Liquefaction plant in Kitimat? By doing this the door has been opened to gas tankers cruising the narrow channel. Each one of these tankers is a bomb waiting to explode. This has also allowed the oil tankers to get their foot in the door, and believe it or not you do not want both of these disasters waiting to happen in the channel.
Keep the tankers out and the pipeline is dead. Also note that the harmless gas also requires a pipeline, another foot in the door.
Keep the tankers out and the pipeline is dead. Also note that the harmless gas also requires a pipeline, another foot in the door.
Similar threads
