Trans Mountain Insanity

Impacts of Tar Sands Expansion on the Paris Agreement

In David Suzuki's article in The Guardian he points out the following:

This pipeline project and consequent scaling up of oilsands extraction also jeopardize Canada’s ability to meet its international Paris Agreement commitments. Expanded oil and gas production that comes with the Trans Mountain project would require the rest of Canada’s economy to reduce emissions by half by 2030 and 85% by 2040 to meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets. This would be very difficult if not impossible.

That’s not the only science-based analysis ignored by the federal government in its assessment of this pipeline’s value to Canada.

Is It Fraud to Lie About an Oil Spill?

Jun 9, 2018, 8:50 PM by Glacier Media

The Kindermorgan pipeline near Kamloops reported a 100-litre spill, but then we find out it was actually 4,800 litres! How is it possible to make decisions when even the mandatory reporting regulations ebb and flow, is it really at the discretion of the company to decide what they are going to say publicly? How can one make any fact-based decisions when the facts are shift like the dunes in a desert? The big question is what other more important facts are not correct?

Leak in Coldwater BC Renders Land Unusable

Even after fixing the pipeline the land is still unusable by its occupants, and they refuse to do more unless a right of way agreement is signed by the landowners. Not only was the land damaged but during the clean up the occupants lost part of their livelihood. The experience has made the local Indian Band question the plans for a new pipeline as it would present a clear and present danger to the aquifer that they are dependant on for their drinking water. It would appear that often these leaks are not resolved and permanent damage to local environments and economies continues unchecked,

Bitumen Sinks in Water And Can Not Be Cleaned Up

In 2010 an Enbridge pipeline carrying bitumen mixed with dilutant burst, flowing 50 million litres of tar sands and toxic dilutants into the environment, causing the evacuation of homes some of which can no longer be lived in. And after five years the bitumen which sank into a 56km stretch of the Kalamazoo River still remains, after the company completed some clean up it was decided it could not be completely cleaned up without destroying the river's ecosystem. So no, it can not be cleaned up and yes it does sink.
In addtion to this international scientific review have also shown that any clean up of bitumen in the environment would be at best only 15% to 20% of what was spilled. 

Did Canada buy an oil pipeline in fear of being sued by China?

Article by Bruce Livesey, 31 May 2018, in The Guardian

1. China's PetroChina bought a 60% interest in two tar sand projects which has an estimated 5 billion barrels of oil, and in 2012 their CNOOC state company bought Nexen the third largest Canadian oil and gas company.
2. Harper in 2014 ratified the Canada-China Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (Fipa). Fipa is used by corporations to challenge public policies, community decisions, native land claims and anything that might prevent the transfer of oil. 
3. If any of these processes interfere with extracting bitumen or oil then Canada can be sued for damages.

New Ship Fuel Regulations Could Sink Tar Sand Expansion

Article by Paul McKay, May 24th, 2018 in The Energy Mix

In Paul's article, he highlights the following developments which will cause significant problems for the ability to market tar sand oils.

1. The United Nations, International Maritime Organization (IMO), has brought in regulations on fuel that can be used by ocean-going vessels. This would restrict the use of Bunker C fuel that which has a high amount of sulphur content. 
2. The new regulation requires a .5% content in ship fuels which represents a 700% reduction.
3. Estimates suggest that 15 of the largest ocean-going vessels currently emit as much sulfur annually as all the cars in the world.
4. A major reduction of 75% in bunker fuel production is already occurring as new refineries are begin reconfigured to meet the new four million barrel market for cleaner fuel.
5. Alberta bitumen has 11 times more sulphur than conventional crude. So the US refinery purchase of diluted bitumen is now slowing to a trickle.
6. The market has already reacted as major oil companies around the world are selling and writing off their losses in the tar sands.
7. These same companies and others are buying up refineries and converting to refine cleaner fuel reducing the number of refineries around the world that could process bitumen.
8. Alberta tar sands bitumen, due to its much more expensive method of refining, cannot match the quality or price of the cleaner fuels coming from other countries.
9. China has initiated an air pollution requirement that will stop the importing fuels with higher sulphur content and the even higher content of bitumen from Alberta.
10. China itself is now exporting oil and petroleum-based products, which could undercut Alberta's tar sands bitumen.
11. There is no documentation that there are any long-term contracts from any Asian countries for the bitumen, a fundament requirement for ensuring the economic viability of the tar sands.
12. It is unlikely that there would be large private investors for the pipeline as pension funds, insurance companies and global banks have already vetoed a tar sands investment.
13. Last year Norway's Statoil, ExxonMobil, Marathon Petroleum, Total S.S., Conoco Philips, Royal Dutch Shell, and Koch Industries sold off 22.5 billion in Alberta bitumen assets to a steep financial loss.

Liberals’ ‘Collective Insanity’ over Trans Mountain Creating New Western Alienation, Say BC Politicians

Proposed joint scientific panel on oil spills called too little, too late.

By Christopher Guly 10 May 2018 | TheTyee.ca

In his article for The Tyee he makes the following points:

1. A proposed joint scientific panel involving the BC to collaborate and monitor spill issues was rejected by Federal Government.
2. There is increasing alienation from BC towards Canada.
3. The proposed panel on spills was called a PR stunt by Climate Change Minister Catherin McKenna
4. The science behind a bitumen spill has not been explored.
5. A leading climate scientist Andrew Weaver, reports that clean up from pipeline and tanker accidents are not supported by rigorous science.
6. The Royal Society of Canada concluded that more research is necessary to understand the impact of a bitumen spill.
7. The National Energy Board has refused to look at the scientific report from the Royal Society of Canada. Instead, they have accepted Kinder Morgan's research.
8. It is likely, to avoid conflicts with the Kinder Morgan research, the Federal Government has muzzled Department of Fisheries scientists, whose research show bitumen spills cannot be cleaned up.
9. Climate scientist Andrew Weaver also confirms there are no examples in the world where bitumen has been successfully cleaned up. In fact, the last cleanup in the US was abandon after years of trying to clean it up.
10. Canada's chief science advisor has refused to look at the science claiming lack of funds.
11. Trudeau's avoidance of the science and promotion of a failing Texas company is sending alienation ripples throughout the country from British Columbia to Quebec.

Kinder Morgan's Record in National Parks

Kinder Morgan's record around spill is not a clear-cut as they would like one to believe, for example in Jasper National Park one of Canada's more precious jewels they have had six breaches of their existing pipeline. Typically it is undetected until some passer-by notices the environmental damage. The company often says there have been no spills but this is just not true until they are pressed for the facts. In 1966 inside the Park a spill released 1.1 million litres of crude oil and less than a decade later a pipeline spontaneously leaked 125,000 litres of crude covering about 200 square feet of the park. The examples go one.

Kinder Morgan Pipeline not OK with First Nations

Contrary to the statements made by Kinder Morgan about First Nations acceptance of their pipeline, which leads the general public to believe they are supportive, First Nations are in court challenging the building of the pipeline. They are also opposed to BC's building of site C dam which is another environmental disaster in the making.

Loop Terminal in Louisiana Will Make the Pipeline Uneconomical

Points taken from Paul McKay's article in Opinion March 7th,  2018

In February 2018 a supertanker pulled into the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, LOOP, this bi-directional oil port filled the tanker at 100,000 barrels an hour. These tankers which carry over 2 million barrels of oil mean tankers that leave Vancouver would only hold a quarter the amount 550,000 barrels. The refinery in Asia would have to pay for four tankers to ship the same amount of oil from a LOOP ship, at a much more cost.

This to say nothing of the high-quality product they would receive compared to the inferior bitumen product laced with combustibles, 102 times more copper, 21 times more vanadium, 11 times more sulphur, 11 times more nickel, 6 times more nitrogen and 5 times more lead. The bitumen product would also have a much lower ratio of hydrogen to carbon making it less efficient when combusted. 

So not only will the bitumen be more expensive to ship it will be far more expensive to refine. Which means refineries they will not pay the same price for the bitumen. Perhaps this is why Exxon-Mobil, Conoco-Phillips, Royal Dutch Shell, Total S.A. and Statoil have taken billion dollar losses to abandon the bitumen fields.

These are the reasons—hiding in plain sight—why Western Canada bitumen fetches the infamous “discount” price per barrel compared to oil supplies shipped from Texas and the North Sea. The LOOP terminal for VLCCs will magnify that spread, and no mythical Asian refiner, trader, or nation is likely to purchase for long a dirtier product that costs more and arrives on slower, smaller boats.

Canada Proposes Fighting Climate Change by Increasing Output by 40%?

What the Prime Minister of Canada is proposing is a 40% increase in oil sands expansion or 70 to 100 megatonne per day increase in emissions. They call this a "hard cap." What this is equal to is doubling the emissions from all cars, trucks, buses and boats in Ontario. In other words, there is no way Canada can meet their Paris climate agreement and increase the capacity of the oils sands for decades to come. To say nothing of the enormous environmental risk being taken both in the oil sands area, along with the dangerous pipeline route or the massive increase in tanker traffic. Keep in mind one of our major pollution sources is in fact tankers themselves, and this has not yet be addressed.