B.C.'s Northern Gateway demands trigger showdown with Albert

[Soulforger]

British Columbia is being offered a deal of an estimated $6.7 Billion over 30 years to take 100% of marine liability and 58% land liability.

Who is making this offer?

From all the news reports and Provincial Government, that was the offer put forward. So far no one has denied it.

[Soulforger]

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners is operating the 1,150-kilometre (710 mi) long Trans Mountain pipeline system from Edmonton, Alberta to terminals and refineries in central British Columbia, the Vancouver area and the Puget Sound region in Washington.[15] The company is planning to double the pipeline's capacity up to 600,000 barrels per day (95,000 m3/d).[16] According to Kinder Morgan, expanding the existing pipeline is cheaper than Northern Gateway and it avoids opposition as experienced by the Enbridge's project.[17]
(wikipedia)

No opposition???

What's up with that?

Enbridge has not had the best record on spill prevention...

[Brexx]

Back at you

Ft St John is the energy capital of BC

BC's Oil and gas commission is centered there

So are you guys going to shut down Northern BC oil rigs because of potional oil spills? What is the province's responsibilities to Northern BC in regards to an oil spill?

Shutting down is not really an option. I support oil and gas development but it has to be done properly and needs to be financially sound.


I support the pipeline but not as the deal stands because this Province could end up losing money on the deal. How much is BP spending to promote, repair and compensate the Gulf States after their oil spill? $20 Billion or so?

British Columbia is being offered a deal of an estimated $6.7 Billion over 30 years to take 100% of marine liability and 58% land liability.

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners is operating the 1,150-kilometre (710 mi) long Trans Mountain pipeline system from Edmonton, Alberta to terminals and refineries in central British Columbia, the Vancouver area and the Puget Sound region in Washington.[15] The company is planning to double the pipeline's capacity up to 600,000 barrels per day (95,000 m3/d).[16] According to Kinder Morgan, expanding the existing pipeline is cheaper than Northern Gateway and it avoids opposition as experienced by the Enbridge's project.[17]
(wikipedia)

No opposition???

What's up with that?

There is opposition to the Trans Mountain expansion but not as much as against Northern Gateway, and Northern Gateway has the spotlight at this time. I don't think Kinder Morgan has actually made their proposal yet, but in time they will face their share of opposition. A lot of people don't like the idea of oil tankers coming out of Burrard inlet right past downtown Vancouver, Stanley Park, and all the beaches around English bay, and the Kinder Morgan proposal would mean bigger ones and more of them. A big point in their favor will be that oil has been shipped out of there for 50 years without a serious spill.

[dpwozney]

British Columbia is being offered a deal of an estimated $6.7 Billion over 30 years to take 100% of marine liability and 58% land liability.

Who is making this offer?

From all the news reports and Provincial Government, that was the offer put forward. So far no one has denied it.

Can you provide a quote from a news report that states “that was the offer put forward” and who made this offer?

Can you provide a quote from the “Provincial Government” that states “that was the offer put forward” and who made this offer?

Someone has asked questions, about the “58%” and “100%” numbers, which questions have not yet been answered.

As the deal stands British Columbia is on the hook for 58% land and 100% marine liability in the event of a spill.

Why do you believe that “as the deal stands British Columbia is on the hook for 58% land and 100% marine liability in the event of a spill”?

What is this “deal” that you are referring to?

How did you determine the “58%” and “100%” numbers?

Corbella: B.C.'s push for royalties a can of worms for Canada

By Licia Corbella, Calgary Herald July 24, 2012

[trimmed]

As B.C.'s Environment Minister Terry Lake stated Monday during a news conference, B.C. will face 100 per cent of the marine environmental risk from the heavy oil pipeline that will travel from Edmonton to Kitimat and 58 per cent of the environmental risk to the land, since about 670 kilometres of the 1,170 kilometre-long line travels through B.C.

[trimmed]

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Corbe ... z21ZjoFRdv

Doesn’t a pipeline company bear environmental risk to the land, since a pipeline company is responsible for paying the costs of a cleanup arising from an oil spill from a pipeline?

Is the pipeline company not assuming any land-based risk for the pipeline in B.C.?

Also, don’t oil tanker companies and/or other privately-owned entities (such as insurance companies) bear marine environmental risk, since oil tanker companies and/or other privately-owned entities are responsible for paying the costs of a cleanup arising from an oil spill from an oil tanker?

According to this July 5 Postmedia News article by Peter O’Neil,

Enbridge assured the JRP earlier this year that if insurance doesn’t cover damages in the event of a spill, the money could be raised from the company’s cash reserves, by borrowing, or even by selling assets.

“Regardless of whether or not insurance covers losses and liabilities of Northern Gateway and/or third parties, Northern Gateway would make good the damages which it has caused,” the company said.

So why does “B.C.'s Environment Minister Terry Lake” claim that “B.C. will face ... 58 per cent of the environmental risk to the land, since about 670 kilometres of the 1,170 kilometre-long line travels through B.C”?

[styky]

Is this what you're looking for????

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... l=en&gl=ca

[dpwozney]

Is this what you're looking for????

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... l=en&gl=ca

styky, assuming you are asking me the above question, the above link does not work for me.

Can you copy and paste whatever excerpt you are referring to?

[styky]

Is this what you're looking for????

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... l=en&gl=ca

styky, assuming you are asking me the above question, the above link does not work for me.

Can you copy and paste whatever excerpt you are referring to?

it works fine for me but it's 56 pages worth
here's the pdf link http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/main/docs/2012 ... 120723.pdf.

[dpwozney]

Is this what you're looking for????

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... l=en&gl=ca

styky, assuming you are asking me the above question, the above link does not work for me.

Can you copy and paste whatever excerpt you are referring to?

it works fine for me but it's 56 pages worth
here's the pdf link http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/main/docs/2012 ... 120723.pdf.

I was able to download and view the above link. Is there any excerpt from this document that you believe answers my questions about the “58%” and “100%” numbers? I have not yet found any such excerpt.

On page 51, the “land environmental risk” to “British Columbia” is indicated as “58%” and the “land environmental risk” to “Alberta” is indicated as “42%”.

Doesn’t a pipeline company bear any land environmental risk, since a pipeline company is responsible for paying the costs of a cleanup arising from an oil spill from a pipeline on land?

Is the pipeline company not assuming any land environmental risk in this case?

According to this July 5 Postmedia News article by Peter O’Neil,

Enbridge assured the JRP earlier this year that if insurance doesn’t cover damages in the event of a spill, the money could be raised from the company’s cash reserves, by borrowing, or even by selling assets.

“Regardless of whether or not insurance covers losses and liabilities of Northern Gateway and/or third parties, Northern Gateway would make good the damages which it has caused,” the company said.

[styky]

I searched every which way possible and this is the only thing that came close to any of the percentages. If that info is out there (and I don't think it is ) then my search skills can't find it. People have a habit of passing what they heard from so and so as gospel when it couldn't be further from the truth. Till I see it in a document it's just hear say. Jus sayin

[dpwozney]

I searched every which way possible and this is the only thing that came close to any of the percentages. If that info is out there (and I don't think it is ) then my search skills can't find it. People have a habit of passing what they heard from so and so as gospel when it couldn't be further from the truth. Till I see it in a document it's just hear say. Jus sayin

Well, for the info that is out there, there appears to be an inconsistency.

The information that is out there includes the document you linked to and the July 5 Postmedia News article by Peter O’Neil.

According to the box on page 51 of the document you linked to, it seems like the pipeline company is not assuming any “land environmental risk”, given that the “land environmental risk” “to B.C.” is indicated as “58%” and the “land environmental risk” “to ... Alberta” is indicated as “42%”.

But, according to the July 5 Postmedia News article by Peter O’Neil, it seems like the pipeline company is assuming land environmental risk.

Which one is it? Is the pipeline company assuming any land environmental risk or not?

[Soulforger]

British Columbia is being offered a deal of an estimated $6.7 Billion over 30 years to take 100% of marine liability and 58% land liability.

Who is making this offer?

From all the news reports and Provincial Government, that was the offer put forward. So far no one has denied it.

Can you provide a quote from a news report that states “that was the offer put forward” and who made this offer?

Can you provide a quote from the “Provincial Government” that states “that was the offer put forward” and who made this offer?

Someone has asked questions, about the “58%” and “100%” numbers, which questions have not yet been answered.

http://www.cknw.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLo ... ID=1744300

Premier Christy Clark is vowing to "fight for BC" and says she won't support the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal unless Alberta agrees to sit down and sweeten the deal for British Columbia.


Clark says right now, things seem pretty one sided---in favour of the Albertans.

"They take the bulk of the benefits. they take a minority of the risk. Meanwhile, British Columbia takes the vast bulk of the risk--100 percent on the marine side, and only gets eight percent of the benefits, according to the economic analysis that's been done for the joint review panel".

Sorry it was posted earlier...


This also clarifies a bit more...


http://www.cloverdalereporter.com/news/164041436.html

Report flags many oil spill response gaps


The province's own assessment that B.C. is underprepared to prevent and clean up oil spills has handed fresh ammunition to opponents of new pipelines and the tankers now moving through Burrard Inlet.



The 52-page technical report, released Monday (July 23) as the government laid out its demands for improved safety and a bigger share of benefits, raises multiple concerns about the risks and procedures already used to export Alberta oil via Kinder Morgan's existing Trans Mountain pipeline through the Lower Mainland.



Among the findings:



- U.S. authorities require oil-laden tankers sailing east of Port Angeles to have escort tugs with them, while that's voluntary for tankers in much of B.C. waters outside Vancouver harbour.



- B.C. fails to match requirements by Washington State requiring an emergency tug be on standby on the sea route.



- Washington bans Suezmax tankers, which carry 800,000 to one million barrels, from its inner waters but Port Metro Vancouver has said that tanker size could be allowed in Vancouver harbour if the Second Narrows is dredged.



- Alaska has far tougher spill response rules, requiring industry-funded emergency responders be able to handle a 300,000 barrel spill, compared to just 70,000 barrels in B.C., before international aid is invoked. B.C. crews would be "completely overwhelmed" by a 260,000-barrel Exxon Valdez-sized spill.



The report warns the current spill response capacity "appears to be insufficient" to handle the existing tanker shipments of oil from the Trans Mountain pipeline even if neither its expansion nor the new Enbridge pipeline proceed.



"Increasing this threshold is critical," the report said of the 70,000-barrel response capability.



It also noted cleanup costs exceeding $1.3 billion may not be covered by insurance or industry funds and fall on taxpayers and others.



"Canada has no plan in place to cover the excess costs of a major spill," it says.



No provision is made to deal with oiled wildlife, it says, and there's no mechanism to make use of volunteers.



It also says the capacity to clean oiled shoreline should be boosted from the current 500 metres of shore per day.



"Exxon Valdez impacted 2,000 kilometres of shoreline. At 500 metres per day, a similar spill occurring in B.C. would require a 10-year cleanup."

[Free_Reign]

Northern Gateway is a bad deal for Canada. Too much infrastructure, not only pipelines but everything from bridges to power grids need improvement. Enbridge should be spending its $6 billion on upgrading its existing pipelines. There's plenty of market for oil in North America. Oil price is set internationally and wouldn't be any better in Asia than here. Career potential for refining is immense in Canada and Canada doesn't owe this energy security to anybody in Asia.

[dpwozney]

British Columbia is being offered a deal of an estimated $6.7 Billion over 30 years to take 100% of marine liability and 58% land liability.

Who is making this offer?

From all the news reports and Provincial Government, that was the offer put forward. So far no one has denied it.

Can you provide a quote from a news report that states “that was the offer put forward” and who made this offer?

Can you provide a quote from the “Provincial Government” that states “that was the offer put forward” and who made this offer?

Someone has asked questions, about the “58%” and “100%” numbers, which questions have not yet been answered.

http://www.cknw.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLo ... ID=1744300

Premier Christy Clark is vowing to "fight for BC" and says she won't support the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal unless Alberta agrees to sit down and sweeten the deal for British Columbia.

Clark says right now, things seem pretty one sided---in favour of the Albertans.

"They take the bulk of the benefits. they take a minority of the risk. Meanwhile, British Columbia takes the vast bulk of the risk--100 percent on the marine side, and only gets eight percent of the benefits, according to the economic analysis that's been done for the joint review panel".

Sorry it was posted earlier...

This also clarifies a bit more...

http://www.cloverdalereporter.com/news/164041436.html

Report flags many oil spill response gaps

The province's own assessment that B.C. is underprepared to prevent and clean up oil spills has handed fresh ammunition to opponents of new pipelines and the tankers now moving through Burrard Inlet.

The 52-page technical report, released Monday (July 23) as the government laid out its demands for improved safety and a bigger share of benefits, raises multiple concerns about the risks and procedures already used to export Alberta oil via Kinder Morgan's existing Trans Mountain pipeline through the Lower Mainland.

Among the findings:

- U.S. authorities require oil-laden tankers sailing east of Port Angeles to have escort tugs with them, while that's voluntary for tankers in much of B.C. waters outside Vancouver harbour.

- B.C. fails to match requirements by Washington State requiring an emergency tug be on standby on the sea route.

- Washington bans Suezmax tankers, which carry 800,000 to one million barrels, from its inner waters but Port Metro Vancouver has said that tanker size could be allowed in Vancouver harbour if the Second Narrows is dredged.

- Alaska has far tougher spill response rules, requiring industry-funded emergency responders be able to handle a 300,000 barrel spill, compared to just 70,000 barrels in B.C., before international aid is invoked. B.C. crews would be "completely overwhelmed" by a 260,000-barrel Exxon Valdez-sized spill.

The report warns the current spill response capacity "appears to be insufficient" to handle the existing tanker shipments of oil from the Trans Mountain pipeline even if neither its expansion nor the new Enbridge pipeline proceed.

"Increasing this threshold is critical," the report said of the 70,000-barrel response capability.

It also noted cleanup costs exceeding $1.3 billion may not be covered by insurance or industry funds and fall on taxpayers and others.

"Canada has no plan in place to cover the excess costs of a major spill," it says.

No provision is made to deal with oiled wildlife, it says, and there's no mechanism to make use of volunteers.

It also says the capacity to clean oiled shoreline should be boosted from the current 500 metres of shore per day.

"Exxon Valdez impacted 2,000 kilometres of shoreline. At 500 metres per day, a similar spill occurring in B.C. would require a 10-year cleanup."

The quotes that you provided did not state that someone made, or “put forward”, an offer to the government of the province of British Columbia for a deal of an estimated $6.7 Billion over 30 years to take 100% of marine liability and 58% land liability.

Doing an “economic analysis” for a joint review panel is not the same as some external entity making an offer to the government of the province of British Columbia.

A “52-page technical report” or “assessment” by the government of the province of British Columbia is not the same as some external entity making an offer to the government of the province of British Columbia.

[WestViking]

Northern Gateway is a bad deal for Canada. Too much infrastructure, not only pipelines but everything from bridges to power grids need improvement. Enbridge should be spending its $6 billion on upgrading its existing pipelines. There's plenty of market for oil in North America. Oil price is set internationally and wouldn't be any better in Asia than here. Career potential for refining is immense in Canada and Canada doesn't owe this energy security to anybody in Asia.

When the Americans decided they did not want the Keystone pipeline, it was obvious that it is in Canada's interests to develop alternate markets for her petroleum. Canada does not "owe" energy security to any other nation or nations. The Northern Gateway will not provide energy security for anyone but opens markets throughout the Pacific.

[Brexx]

Northern Gateway is a bad deal for Canada. Too much infrastructure, not only pipelines but everything from bridges to power grids need improvement. Enbridge should be spending its $6 billion on upgrading its existing pipelines. There's plenty of market for oil in North America. Oil price is set internationally and wouldn't be any better in Asia than here. Career potential for refining is immense in Canada and Canada doesn't owe this energy security to anybody in Asia.

The price they are getting in the US for the bitumen is $10 to $30 a barrel less than they could get in Asia.