[Graeme]

Yes, I've seen a report that tar sand oil will likely be shipped by rail into the US even though it will be more expensive that way. Not sure how the economics of this development will pan out but if it lasts 40 years then the increased ghg's will hasten the environmental disaster looming and possible economic one as well.

[ROCKMAN]

"Not sure if by "price" you meant that BC would somehow share in revenues from the oil". Not sharing the royalty but I've seen other reports that the focus was BC getting a per bbl tariff for oil shipped through the province as well as refinery utilization in BC so they’ll collect taxes on that end. Seen a report or two indicating a tariff fee would also placate the First Nation. I doubt Alberta would have a big problem with the tariff since it wouldn’t be coming from their cut.

But I think the negotiations are being held to expedite the situation. As I understand it the federal govt has the sole authority to allow the pipeline but that could take years of legal battles to settle.

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ot sure how the economics of this development will pan out but if it lasts 40 years then the increased ghg's will hasten the environmental disaster looming and possible economic one as well.

[Paulo1]

As a coastal BCer, I have news for you folks. Natives will not....I repeat, will not allow tanker traffic to facilitate the shipping of Bitumen by the Northern Gateway proposal. The pipeline that currently exists to Burrard Inlet (Vancouver) will probably be doubled...or tripled, but the chance of Northern Gateway being completed is nil, despite what Christi Clark and Allison Redford negotiate.

The objections start with the Haida, and move east along the coast with every other band objecting. As for the pipeline, itself, any attempt at construction will be met with unending protests. As for 'a price', politicians might have a 'price', but the history of aboriginal relations and past agreements, in general the resultant bad will between Natives and white politicians and business leaders, is simply too great to overcome. There is no trust in what politicians say and certainly Enbridge is thought to be a lying organization just waiting to foul the beaches and rivers.

A personal anecdote for you. In Sept. I was waiting for an X-ray at Campbell River Hospital and sat next to a native guy from Alert Bay. We got talking about fishing and it turns out he has been a commercial fisherman all of his life. In fact, he skippers his own seiner. I asked him about the feelings regarding the pipeline in Alert Bay and he stated his people would shed blood over it if it came to that. Alert Bay is a major native settlement between Vancouver Island and the Mainland....and is quite influential. In fact, they swing both federal and provincial rep. elections. The folks at Bella Bella and Bella Coola say the same, as well as all other coastal bands. Between them they operate many, if not most of the west coast fishing fleet boats, and they are pissed at the idea of increased tanker traffic.

If any of you doubt the effect of environmental protest in BC read the following: http://www.beyondnootka.com/articles/st ... ona_9.html

and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_Clayoquot_Sound

This is just a sample of non-native protesters ready to go. Add to this Greenpeace, etc...+ Native Bands, and the fact that BC is now trying to get gas pipelines and terminals built for LNG exports, the probability of Northern Gateway actually being started, let alone completed, is very slight. The Feds have pretty much given up on the possibility and are pushing for an eastern route as we speak.

By the way, just so you have some background on where I am coming from, I actually support the Oil Sands development as it now stands...as an additional transition fuel source until humans can ramp up renewables and increase conservation. In our home we have a very small energy footprint, grow most of our own food, use greenhouses, extreme insulation, wood heat, etc. My son is currently wiring in pipeline pumping stations as I write this. If I still worked in industry, (carpenter), I would be working there too, as there are very few other sources of decent paying jobs in Canada that are not connected to the energy sector. I am not against this utilization, for now, but as a very long term west coast float pilot intimate with the waterways between Prince Rupert and Vancouver, the northern BC west coast is no place for tanker traffic...at all. Increased traffic through Juan De Fuca Strait and on to Vancouver is bad enough....Kitimat? I don't think so. Check it out on Google Earth if you want to see rugged. I can only imagine bitumen washing up onto Cape Caution or the Brooks Penninsula. It blows 150 km/hr at least once a week, (or at least it seemed that way when I was flogging a Beaver to some logging camp).

regards Paulo

[ROCKMAN]

Paulo - great to have a first-hand spotter on location. Mucho thanks. If I understand the way the dynamics are rolling the oil is going to make it to the coast via a pipeline or by rail. And I gather there's little chance of the rail option being prevented. Is that your take on it?

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s a coastal BCer, I have news for you folks. Natives will not....I repeat, will not allow tanker traffic to facilitate the shipping of Bitumen by the Northern Gateway proposal.

[Paulo1]

Hi Rockman and RocDoc,
sorry....long answer required

There is still a great deal of chatter about the pipeline. Harper wants it, big time. Yes, the rail lines will be hauling bitumen, but that is extremely problematic as recent downsizings have increased train lengths, and reduced crew and safety measures. They might haul it to the coast, but not enough to sustain tanker traffic. Another derailment into a lake and river, well, one day it will be one time too many. I would suspect most transport will still be US bound despite the delay in KeystoneXL. Plus, there are the proposals for an eastern route using retooled/reversed pipelines.

RocDoc, by no means do I for one minute suggest that natives are the pristine stewards of nature they are made out to be in our politically correct world. Especially by the educated urban coffee crowd who seem to think that is the case. I spent most of my flying career flying for logging, mining, and into remote native settlements. While it is common to blame the white man for the state of these remote reserves, the fact of the matter is that most of the homes are hovels and neglected because the residents have no skin in the game. Plus, there is too high birthrates resulting in overcrowding and terrible conditions. Housing is provided by Govt funds. It is not uncommon to see sacks of garbage, everywhere, including old washing machines and fridges left in the yards when they quit working. I have seen estuaries logged down to the water, yet if a company did this nowadays they would be fined into oblivion. In NWT (Ft Rae) I remember seeing SUVs and trucks circling the village of shacks (1 mile?) all day long for something to do...drive, stop, visit, drive ...all day long! However, the myth of 'one with nature' prevades in both cultures and on the coast this will translate into not allowing the pipeline or tankers. I would bet my house on it.

Having said all that, and I know the above sounds terribly racist, but having said this it is my experience when people have absolutely nothing and life is not going well, sometimes protest is an extremely valid option; perhaps the only option that makes sense. Add to that fishermen and their families, environmentalists, and well meaning people with an opinion, I believe a ground swell of protest will become monumental and violent. Plus, this myth of 'natures steward' has become entrenched with almost everyone. How do you walk away from it if that is all you have right now? Native culture has been denigrated and shelved into our modern electronic world, the subsistence welfare existence is horrible, and there are few to none real prospects in these remote areas even if there was some kind of pay out-buy off. Besides, in the past most of these buy offs have gone to a few insider aboriginal families linked to the chief within the crony band system. (There are many chiefs in Canada...sometimes of bands numbering just a few hundred...that make far in excess of our Prime Minister!!

just one exmple:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatche ... ste-1.1351

No kidding!!

I realize, admit, and accept that I hypocritically protest the Northern Gateway while benefitting, (like the rest of Canadians), from the economic benefits of Tar/Oil Sands development. My son works there. Many of my friends work there. I drive a ff powered truck. I can only say that I have been taking steps to lessen my use of these fuels as much as I can. We drive as little as possible, pay more for local, and have powered down a great deal in almost everything we do. I am as concerned about climate change as much as anyone. I live a few km from the beach on a river that is tidal. Will my land one day be submerged? The old refrain, two wrongs don't make a right, while trite explains how many feel about Northern Gateway. Yes, we consumer citizens are part of the problem...the biggest part of the problem, however, it is easy enough to see that allowing the pipeline to be built is the wrong thing to do for us who inhabit the coast...and for the land and water that is who we are. (Obviously, we don't live in a city )

Right now I pay $1.27 for a litre of regular. I would pay double if it meant keeping Northern Gateway on hold. We would pay, whatever. The problem is once it is in (pipeline), with the enormous oil sands reserves in Alberta and Sask., the bitumen quantities will simply increase more and more over time. If is accessed more readily, there will never be any incentive for people to change in how we use energy. When we see what fuel does for us, $10.00 gal is cheap...a bargain. Plastic crap at walmarts will wither away, but we will still be able to live good lives. Those lives will simply have to adjust and reset. What is wrong with leaving it in the ground for a slower utilization? Does it have to be rushed and mined right away? We have a skills shortage in Canada anyway, why not slow down and leave development to balance out?

Is there a TOD rebuilding here? I sure hope so.

regards...Paulo

[Paulo1]

This link will work re: salaries band chiefs.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatche ... ste-1.1351

actually, it didn't. But if you paste it in the original article comes up.

Paulo

[Graeme]

Despite new energy agreement between British Columbia and Alberta, opposition to tar sands moving west remains strong

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') big part of the discussion about the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline hinges on the extent to which Keystone XL would be a driver of tar sands expansion. With Canadians raising concerns about tar sands pipelines crossing their own lands and waters, Keystone XL remains the main chance for the tar sands industry to reach overseas markets with their nearly land-locked product. So what does a new announcement from the leaders of the Canadian provinces of Albert and British Columbia have to do with the likelihood of new tar sands pipelines to Canada’s west coast? A closer look at the recent announcement shows that tar sands pipelines to the west coast remain as unlikely today as they have always been. Most important is how strong the opposition of First Nations and the general public remains in British Columbia to tar sands pipelines and the associated large oil tankers that would travel sensitive inner coastal waters. Tar sands remain as land-locked as ever with British Columbians standing strong in opposition to oil spills.

Alberta Premier Alison Redford and British Columbia Premier Christy Clark did reach what they are calling a framework agreement between their two provinces on moving energy resources to new markets. But when we look more closely at the terms, it seems more an agreement to keep discussions going. British Columbia has not yet agreed to endorse any specific tar sands pipeline.

[rockdoc123]

Paulo

Good insight I think. The issues are quite complex and most pale skins have a hard time understanding it if their entire world is shaped by what they read in newspapers.
My experience has been quite varied having dealt with First Nations in a number of places (heck I used to play golf occasionally with the then chief of the Tsu T'ina!). There are communities that are in terrible shape as you point out....there are communities that have done a lot to look at ways of generating jobs, building schools and bringing in revenue for the band. There are also a few communities along the northern coast of BC that are isolated and have completely outlawed liquor choosing to live life in a fashion not much different than they did a hundred years ago (although the occasional satellite TV seems to inevitably make its way into the mix). That kind of mixed bag, to my mind, makes it very difficult to say First Nations as a whole do or will oppose a pipeline. The press may say that because it seems like a better story but the reality is more likely there are groups that see benefits and others that are mostly worried about insuring environmental safety and others that just oppose it because it isn't something they can see clear personal benefit for.
In Calgary there was a recent agreement by the Tsu T'ina band to allow for the building of a roadway that would give traffic a fast route to avoid driving through the city (eg. transport trucks coming from outside the province and either trying to get to BC or Saskatchewan (depending on where they are coming from) are currently forced to drive through the city). That agreement for the ring road was hard fought over a period of probably 10 years. Granted the province took a half hearted view to the negotiations but a few years back they offered the band $200 MM, tarriffs and replacement land which was turned down. The recent deal is for slightly more money but the main reason it passed was the band leaders had different views than they did in the past.

[electro-rail]

Dear pipeline addicts:

The AB and BC Premiers are feeding the Oil Patch their Methadone.

The PipeCo's proposals, NG and TMX and Old School Legacy RailCos with aspirations of moving oil through BC and imposing supertanker risk upon BC coastal waters will never go anywhere.

Within all the press releases and rhetoric around this issue, replace "pipelines" with "oil transport options to Pacific tidewater, other than BC - Alaska, for example".

The actual situation will read entirely differently and these elected leaders will get themselves out of an intractable political problem by a pending superior proposal.

Stay tuned for Enhanced Rail. The Third Way.

(you heard it here second, this 5 year old epic project was first revealed a couple years ago on TOD by still wind but no one was listening or gave a shite or believed it back then when I offered the opinion that declared ENB NG D.O.A.)

[ROCKMAN]

And yet there are still options to increase the oil pipeline capacity to the west coast along an existing ROW. I wonder how many folks aren't aware that oil has been pipelined across BC and loaded out into tankers on the Canadian and US coasts for many years:

"The Kinder Morgan pipeline company is rolling out plans to spend $5 billion to nearly triple the capacity of its Trans Mountain pipeline that carries crude oil from the Alberta oil sands to tankers in Vancouver. When completed, the proposed expansion will increase capacity in Trans Mountain from the existing capacity of 300,000 barrels per day to 850,000 barrels per day.

It will also include the expansion of the Westridge Marine Terminal in Vancouver to allow larger tanker ships to transport the oil to Asia. Construction is currently forecast to commence in 2016 with the proposed project operating by 2017. The Trans Mountain line stretches 1,150 kilometres between Edmonton and terminals in the Vancouver area and Washington State. It carries heavy and light crude oil, as well as refined products such as gasoline and diesel.

The expansion plan comes as Enbridge seeks to build its own Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta to Kitimat on the North Coast of B.C.

[Graeme]

Internal Docs Expose Oil Industry 'Profit over Planet' Mentality

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')nternal documents exposed publicly Friday have pulled back the curtain on the Canadian oil industry's war against carbon-curbing regulations in a bid to protect its profit margin over the planet.

Emails between the Canadian federal government and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP)—released through provincial freedom of information laws and publicly posted by Greenpeace Canada researcher Keith Stewart—reveal that last spring the oil industry successfully delayed a proposed carbon tax increase of $40 per ton in the province of Alberta by lobbying the Canadian federal government.

“The industry in these documents is clearly saying delay, delay, delay and then do as little as possible,” Stewart said Friday in an interview with the Globe and Mail. “And the federal government seems to be taking that as marching orders.”

In the exposed emails, CAPP officials vigorously oppose "costly new burdens on the industry and the economy." Numbered among their concerns is that the profit margin of the tar sands industry could be harmed.

They insist the proposed tax will hurt their bottom-line without helping their public image. "The objection to the oil sands is ideological... if the 40/40 guidelines were enacted, oil sands opponents would claim that they too were insufficient."

"Will higher stringency requirements impact production and revenue?" reads the document. "Very likely."

[ROCKMAN]

"In the exposed emails, CAPP officials vigorously oppose "costly new burdens on the industry and the economy." Numbered among their concerns is that the profit margin of the tar sands industry could be harmed."

EXPOSED AT LAST...thank Dog. All this time folks labored under the false impression that the Canadian oil patch didn't care about profit margins. The Truth will set you free! LOL.

[ROCKMAN]

Looks like the Keystone system has lost some of it earlier supporters: Bakken oil producers. Now those operators can frac and expand production even faster than planned...and flare more NG in the process:

"One of the earliest and biggest political selling points of the Keystone XL pipeline was that it would not just bring Canadian oil sands to market but also oil from North Dakota and Montana. But that was back in 2010, and things are moving fast in the heart of America's oil boom—fast enough that some question whether the Keystone XL pipeline is necessary at all around here. At least one key oil executive says the pipeline is no longer needed to bring to market crude oil from the region's Bakken shale formation, where oil output has exploded in the past five years, thanks to the combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. "It's not critical any longer," said Harold Hamm, founder and CEO of Continental Resources, an independent oil company that had the earliest—and still largest—footprint in the Bakken at 11 percent. "They just waited too long. The industry is very innovative, and it finds other ways of doing it and other routes." Hamm said two years ago was the turning point when the pipeline became unnecessary to get oil out of the Bakken and Three Forks region of Western North Dakota and Eastern Montana. These formations have produced a record 756,980 barrels of oil a day, up from fewer than 70,000 barrels of oil a day in June 2008. Oil production records are being broken both monthly and yearly.

The Keystone XL pipeline would take 730,000 barrels of oil daily from Canada to Texas, with up to 100,000 of that coming from the Bakken formation. "There are other ways. There are other people who want to build pipes and don't have to go across the border, and it doesn't have to involve bitumen from Canada," Hamm said, referring to the oil sands from Alberta. The "other people" building pipes that Hamm is referring to is chiefly Enbridge, another Canadian oil company that's making a killing expanding its oil-transportation system in North Dakota while TransCanada remains stuck in political limbo over Keystone XL. With recently completed pipeline and rail expansions, Enbridge has almost doubled its capacity to send Bakken oil out of the region and into markets around the country, from 250,000 barrels of oil per day in 2011 to 475,000 barrels per day today, with most of that going by pipe. It also recently announced another pipeline that would add another 225,000 barrels a day in 2016, according to Peter Holran, director of U.S. public and government affairs for Enbridge. "Enbridge is hauling oil from almost every company out here," Hamm said. Indeed, massive storage tanks with Enbridge's name and logo are seen along the highways around Williston."

So another unintended consequence of the delay of the Keystone pipeline system: with the expansion of alternative transport of the Bakken production up to 100,000 bbls per day of capacity has been freed up to allow that much more oil sands production to be exported to the US. No doubt the Canadian companies are pleased to not have to compete with N. Dakota companies for room in the system.

[Pik]

This is what Nathan Cullen the federal MP for Skeena had to say about it:

MP Nathan Cullen called the BC-Alberta framework agreement struck this morning regarding Enbridge “political window-dressing” that draws a blind on truth and transparency and deals a bust hand to British Columbia.

“When it comes to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline, everything is negotiable for Christy Clark, including principals and promises made leading up to last May’s provincial election,” Cullen said.

“The reality is that none of the five conditions Ms. Clark made such a big deal about 16 months as being necessary for Enbridge to put a pipeline through our province were even remotely addressed in today’s announcement.

“The best we got after overnight negotiations and months of high drama is the ‘possibility of progress’ and a bizarre blessing that somehow allows BC to negotiate directly with Enbridge.

“Today’s agreement does absolutely zero to protect BC’s environment and economy from a bitumen disaster,” Cullen said.

“It’s a shameful political ploy that greases Ms. Clark’s real agenda, which is to pump oil through BC regardless of environmental or economic costs.

“Six months into a new mandate and Premier Clark has turned her back on promises to stand up for BC and demand a higher standard from industry.”

Cullen noted Enbridge’s social licence to operate is clearly tied to safe oil transport, effective spill response, and First Nations consent, conditions on which today’s agreement is silent.

Cullen vowed to continue fighting the Enbridge pipeline and to work toward sustainable resource development that is supported by Skeena-Bulkley Valley communities.

[electro-rail]

Dear Pik: your posting of Nathan Cullen quote/opinion suggest you are very much up to speed on the Pipelines thru BC issue (not a debate, its over, other than arresting all the elders and grandmother's as a precursor to Ottawa calling in the Troops to defend the excavators etc.)

I was going to post a similar "edification" retort to Rockman's posting above:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '&')quot;And yet there are still options to increase the oil pipeline capacity to the west coast along an existing ROW. I wonder how many folks aren't aware that oil has been pipelined across BC and loaded out into tankers on the Canadian and US coasts for many years:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '<')/div>

This is not an option.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '&')quot;The Kinder Morgan pipeline company is rolling out plans to spend $5 billion to nearly triple the capacity of its Trans Mountain pipeline that carries crude oil from the Alberta oil sands to tankers in Vancouver. When completed, the proposed expansion will increase capacity in Trans Mountain from the existing capacity of 300,000 barrels per day to 850,000 barrels per day."

[ROCKMAN]

"why would anyone give social license to this unneeded 30-year risk of an oil-spill accident?" The risk already exists and has for years. I gather that some are unaware of the oil that has been tankered out of BC for years. There may be some success preventing some expansion but difficult to unring a bell. This is from a 2011 article:

"For environmentalists who think they are girding to block oil exports off the West Coast by opposing Enbridge Inc.’s Northern Gateway, consider this: There are two petroleum tankers anchored in Burrard Inlet, just off Kinder Morgan Canada’s Westridge terminal in Burnaby as of the writing of this blog post. Kinder Morgan has seen steadily increasing its shipments from the facility, which we reported on in the spring. At that time, a Kinder Morgan representative told us they tried to reserve the equivalent of about 50,000 barrels per day from Trans Mountain’s 300,000 barrels per day capacity for exports, but in 2010 demand was more along the lines of 80,000 barrels per day. But the increase was possible because of Kinder Morgan’s expansion plans for Trans Mountain, which have been underway for the last several years. Kinder Morgan’s plan includes twinning and expanding the Trans Mountain line to a possible maximum of 700,000 barrels per day. In 2008, it completed the first phase, which included twinning sections through Jasper National and Mount Robson Provincial parks to Valemount, raising its capacity to its current 300,000 barrels per day from about 250,000 barrels per day.

That plan, however, is likely to start attracting a whole lot more attention from the environmental movement. If you weren’t aware that oil tankers regularly call on the Port of Vancouver, the Wilderness Committee has launched a so-called alert system to notify people of when the ships are coming into or leaving the harbor. “No longer will any tankers pass through Vancouver Harbour without anybody knowing about it,” says Wilderness Committee campaigner Ben West. The intent, he adds, is to give people information about “the expansion of oil exports that has been happening quietly without anyone being properly consulted.” Well, more like happening unwatched. Kinder Morgan has never been secretive about its plans to expand Trans Mountain dating back to at least 2006. As far as tankers go, information on all ships – including tankers – is readily, publicly available. The Pacific Pilotage Authority maintains this list of which ships are at what terminals or anchorages in harbours up and down the coast. You can see where ships are on this map. Zoom in on Vancouver, and look for the bright red icons, those are tankers. Pointers indicate moving ships, the diamonds show ships docked or anchored.

Now, where am I going with this? Notwithstanding environmental battles yet to be fought over the continuation of Kinder Morgan’s expansion plans, or the necessary debate about how we must reduce our carbon-heavy footprint on climate, an increasing amount of oil is being produced in Alberta’s oilsands, with projects that are already in construction. And, taking a bit of a page from the TransCanada Corp./Keystone XL experience, the one where as soon as the United States State Department announced it was delaying its decision on whether to approve the 700,000-barrels-per-day pipeline, Enbridge Inc. unveiled its plans to buy a half share in a pipeline that will shortly carry half as much oil to the same destination, gravity may have more to do with whether or not more oilsands oil is shipped off the west coast. When I say gravity, I mean when there is a supply of oil building, and one route for it to travel is blocked, the flow will find whatever other routes there are to travel. There is certainly demand for the oil at the end. And in B.C., opponents may be lining up to try and block the opening of Enbridge’s $5.5 billion Northern Gateway route for oilsands bitumen, trying to turn off the existing tap, preventing it from opening up a bit more, may prove harder.

[electro-rail]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '&')quot;why would anyone give social license to this unneeded 30-year risk of an oil-spill accident?" The risk already exists and has for years. I gather that some are unaware of the oil that has been tankered out of BC for years. There may be some success preventing some expansion but difficult to unring a bell.

[Pik]

The biggest hurdle that Enbridge needs to overcome is the coastal First Nations steadfast refusal to endorse this pipeline. What most people in Alberta and the rest of the country fail to appreciate is that the salmon which continue to return and spawn in countless streams and rivers are an important aspect of their culture. Any threat to that resource will be met with vigorous opposition. Canada's minister of natural resources Joe Oliver has recently stated that without the consent of First Nations there will be no pipeline, which seems to contrast sharply with Mr. Harpers utterance that he won't take no for an answer in regards to Keystone. After listening to a CBC interview when Joe was asked " What if First Nations reject Northern Gateway?" he refused to speculate on what he termed a negative hypothetical situation. It makes me wonder about his sincerity especially after hearing another conservative cabinet minister Jim Prentice quip " what ever it takes to get to yes".
As witnessed by those touchy feelly Enbridge comercials there is a concerted effort going on right now to sway public opinion and this most recent episode of Christy and Alison kissing and making up is just another propaganda event staged to achieve that end. And according to an Insights West poll conducted this month they are making headway. Fortunately BC First Nations are running their own counter campaign featuring images of the Exon Valdez disaster to remind people of the consequences associated with tanker spills.
As a person who lives in the area which would feel the full impact from a pipeline or tanker accident I am grateful for the obstinate stance First Nations are taking and if push comes to shove I will be standing shoulder to shoulder with them.