Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Condensate spill in the East China Sea - are we risking this in BC?


JM_

Recommended Posts

There hasn't been a lot of coverage on a tanker disaster in the East China Sea last month that was carrying condensate  - the "dil" in dilbit / diluted bitumen. Its currently threatening the fishing industry in a massive area between China and Japan.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/world/asia/china-condensate-oil-spill-tanker-cleanup.html

 

As it stands today, condensate cannot be cleaned up, so this is a very important test of our risk on the coast. If this spill shows condensate getting into the food chain I don't see how Alberta can justify the risk to BC and I could see the effects from this spill becoming a very important piece in a constitutional battle over who has the final say in projects that potentially threaten the economy of one province vs. another. 

 

Thoughts?

 

---

 

For this discussion please try to keep the "SJW" or "rig pig" comments to a minimum, thanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my understanding that a condensate spill is one of the best of all potential spills to have, something about the lack of tar and asphalt fractions that, once all the hydrocarbons have been consumed by naturally occurring organisms, render this pretty tame. It cannot be cleaned up because as soon as it hits water is immediately spreads itself out far and wide to a super thin surface film. The affected area is greater than that of a crude spill, but the microbes have a much easier time breaking it down, and there will never be massive tar slicks washing ashore, or ducks and seals washing up on a beach with sticky feathers/fur because the condensate has already been scrubbed of the "dirty" stuff. That said, it still takes time to get to that point, some marine life will definitely die, and no spill at all is better than the best one to hope for. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Green Building said:

It's my understanding that a condensate spill is one of the best of all potential spills to have, something about the lack of tar and asphalt fractions that, once all the hydrocarbons have been consumed by naturally occurring organisms, render this pretty tame. It cannot be cleaned up because as soon as it hits water is immediately spreads itself out far and wide to a super thin surface film. The affected area is greater than that of a crude spill, but the microbes have a much easier time breaking it down, and there will never be massive tar slicks washing ashore, or ducks and seals washing up on a beach with sticky feathers/fur because the condensate has already been scrubbed of the "dirty" stuff. That said, it still takes time to get to that point, some marine life will definitely die, and no spill at all is better than the best one to hope for. 

 

 

that was what I had read as well, but nothing on the scale of this spill of condensate has happened before. So we need to really understand what this does to the marine food chain before letting it loose here. So unfortunately for Japan and China they get to be the guinea pigs on this one. 

 

As far as the tar lumps go, we know from the NRC study published in 2013 that if sediment is present the tar will sink to the bottom, so how do you clean that up?

 

Last thing I want to see is our $100 million dollar prawn industry go down the drain over something like this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

that was what I had read as well, but nothing on the scale of this spill of condensate has happened before. So we need to really understand what this does to the marine food chain before letting it loose here. So unfortunately for Japan and China they get to be the guinea pigs on this one. 

 

As far as the tar lumps go, we know from the NRC study published in 2013 that if sediment is present the tar will sink to the bottom, so how do you clean that up?

 

Last thing I want to see is our $100 million dollar prawn industry go down the drain over something like this. 

It's true, this will be a chance to learn exactly what happens with a spill like this. I'm not promoting more spills, nor downplaying the fact that marine like will die in the short term, but it's supposed to be a better kind of spill compared to tar. It took 5+ years for oyster farmers to be comfortable, or allowed, to farm oysters again along the Gulf Coast regions affected by the BP spill, and they're still a long long ways from being anything resembling back to normal.  For the most part that tar isn't gone, it's just thinned out into smaller globules that still bounce around the sea floor in currents. That's a massive problem, and one that isn't likely to occur with condensate. How do you clean tar globules up? Hell if I know.

 

This whole BC Alberta trade feud amuses me, but what annoys me is that there's always the chance BC will just cave due to some unrelated matter and in the pipeline goes. I'm not anti-pipeline, I'm anti-minimal-engineering and poor spill response that accompanies all or most pipelines. Kinder Morgan was touted as being one of the best and it still spills nasty amounts. Figure that out and then you can put a new pipeline in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Green Building said:

It's true, this will be a chance to learn exactly what happens with a spill like this. I'm not promoting more spills, nor downplaying the fact that marine like will die in the short term, but it's supposed to be a better kind of spill compared to tar. It took 5+ years for oyster farmers to be comfortable, or allowed, to farm oysters again along the Gulf Coast regions affected by the BP spill, and they're still a long long ways from being anything resembling back to normal.  For the most part that tar isn't gone, it's just thinned out into smaller globules that still bounce around the sea floor in currents. That's a massive problem, and one that isn't likely to occur with condensate. How do you clean tar globules up? Hell if I know.

 

This whole BC Alberta trade feud amuses me, but what annoys me is that there's always the chance BC will just cave due to some unrelated matter and in the pipeline goes. I'm not anti-pipeline, I'm anti-minimal-engineering and poor spill response that accompanies all or most pipelines. Kinder Morgan was touted as being one of the best and it still spills nasty amounts. Figure that out and then you can put a new pipeline in.

I would imagine this is what Horgan is deciding more than anything else right now... does he risk a full-on trade war with AB that just results in job losses and a pipeline anyway, or do they push it to federal court?

 

Personally I want to see this go to the supreme court asap. One of the reasons I think Notely is losing it is that the jurisdictional issues haven't been tested. Like you say the BP spill is still causing issues, and if we find out condensate will cause even more harm? yikes. I don' think its clear cut constitutionally that AB can impose this kind of risk so I want to see that one go to the top court. 

 

On a side note, I wish Christy Clark would keep quiet on this, she's not helping things one iota calling out Horgan in the media. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I would imagine this is what Horgan is deciding more than anything else right now... does he risk a full-on trade war with AB that just results in job losses and a pipeline anyway, or do they push it to federal court?

Or, is he just trying to impress Weaver enough to get through the Throne speech and then he will cave in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, goalie13 said:

Or, is he just trying to impress Weaver enough to get through the Throne speech and then he will cave in?

I don't know why he would? He already got what he needed from Weaver, there's no way he brings the government down at this point either. Weaver blew his leverage already, I doubt he even enters into Horgan's calculations on this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I don't know why he would? He already got what he needed from Weaver, there's no way he brings the government down at this point either. Weaver blew his leverage already, I doubt he even enters into Horgan's calculations on this. 

The only way Weaver can stay relevant is to continually remind us (and Horgan) that he has the power to bring the government down.  I saw some recent articles where Weaver was threatening to bring them down over LNG.  That's what got me thinking about it.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-green-partys-andrew-weaver-threatens-to-take-down-ndp-over-lng/article37664479/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, goalie13 said:

The only way Weaver can stay relevant is to continually remind us (and Horgan) that he has the power to bring the government down.  I saw some recent articles where Weaver was threatening to bring them down over LNG.  That's what got me thinking about it.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-green-partys-andrew-weaver-threatens-to-take-down-ndp-over-lng/article37664479/

I saw that one too, kind of made me chuckle. Weaver is proposing to bring the government down if the NDP helps bring in billions in investment.... talk about irony :lol: 

 

IMO that would be the kiss of death for Weaver, its one thing to promote green industry and housing its another to actively work to destroy jobs. The Liberals didn't lose by much and a spectacle like this could very easily turn things back to a Liberal government. And then who is Weaver going to work with for the next election?  Its just bluster on Weavers part imo, but I guess you never know, this is BC after all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I would imagine this is what Horgan is deciding more than anything else right now... does he risk a full-on trade war with AB that just results in job losses and a pipeline anyway, or do they push it to federal court?

 

Personally I want to see this go to the supreme court asap. One of the reasons I think Notely is losing it is that the jurisdictional issues haven't been tested. Like you say the BP spill is still causing issues, and if we find out condensate will cause even more harm? yikes. I don' think its clear cut constitutionally that AB can impose this kind of risk so I want to see that one go to the top court. 

 

On a side note, I wish Christy Clark would keep quiet on this, she's not helping things one iota calling out Horgan in the media. 

She should be rotting in a prison cell along with her entire cabinet for what they did. What a piece of refuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, buddhahoodlum said:

We should be prepared to go to war, literally, with Alberta and Ottawa over the pipeline.

"There are 44,551 km of pipelines in B.C., and the majority carry natural gas (80%)."

 

Which one do you want to go to war for?

 

If you're really against them, then please stop using any products from them.  

 

Oh wait, I guess you don't really mean what you're saying...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Green Building said:

It's true, this will be a chance to learn exactly what happens with a spill like this. I'm not promoting more spills, nor downplaying the fact that marine like will die in the short term, but it's supposed to be a better kind of spill compared to tar. It took 5+ years for oyster farmers to be comfortable, or allowed, to farm oysters again along the Gulf Coast regions affected by the BP spill, and they're still a long long ways from being anything resembling back to normal.  For the most part that tar isn't gone, it's just thinned out into smaller globules that still bounce around the sea floor in currents. That's a massive problem, and one that isn't likely to occur with condensate. How do you clean tar globules up? Hell if I know.

 

This whole BC Alberta trade feud amuses me, but what annoys me is that there's always the chance BC will just cave due to some unrelated matter and in the pipeline goes. I'm not anti-pipeline, I'm anti-minimal-engineering and poor spill response that accompanies all or most pipelines. Kinder Morgan was touted as being one of the best and it still spills nasty amounts. Figure that out and then you can put a new pipeline in.

It's already pretty well known what happens with condensate spills. It's just the companies that drag their feet to get action on the spill right away. The BP spill was a disaster because they did not respond quick enough or accurate enough. There are proper ways to clean up spills. We in the industry have to attend spill training exercises ever year. You learn about proper booming techniques and how to channel the spillage into your containment area so to avoid any other down steam issues. The big thing is properly containing your spill so it does not go past your clean up boundaries. Harder said than done, as in the condensate spill in China, open ocean has a major spread effect, and tankers are not equipped to deal with massive spills, you need proper engagement by emergency management crews to reduce the spreading and impact... Which is what BC was proposing when we were talking about pipelining dilbit crude oil from AB. However Dilbit is a whole different ball of wax as it actually sinks to the bottom instead of floating like condensate. That's what freaked me out about the northern gate way project. And I do work in the industry and still did not like it. If a leak did ever happen, we don't stand much of a chance to clean it up. However, if you process the dilbit via a refinery and ship out the refined product that way you end up with products that are lighter than water again and then therefor "float". Dilbit as it is is heavier than water. Dilbit is mixed with condensate to make it more pumpable through pipelines, if it were not blended it would be so thick and heavy it would not pump well. So yes the condensate blended into the dilbit will float but the rest will sink. Overall I still say no to northern gate way. LNG is a different matter. I'm on board with that. If a leak occurs the LNG is ignitable and will not cause ocean spillage. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

that was what I had read as well, but nothing on the scale of this spill of condensate has happened before. So we need to really understand what this does to the marine food chain before letting it loose here. So unfortunately for Japan and China they get to be the guinea pigs on this one. 

 

As far as the tar lumps go, we know from the NRC study published in 2013 that if sediment is present the tar will sink to the bottom, so how do you clean that up?

 

Last thing I want to see is our $100 million dollar prawn industry go down the drain over something like this. 

Exactly...but I already wrote my above post and put too much into it not to put it up lol. You summed up my concerns exactly...how do you clean it up...no one knows yet. NOT GOOD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So long as we need to transport chemicals and other items there will always be a risk of things like this happening; however, if we didn't transport these chemicals, the world would come to a halt. This really is one of the fundamental problems we have in today's society. We have turned ourselves into being dependent on these things and THAT is the actual problem in my opinion.

 

The real problem we need to face as a society is one that people simply don't want to face as they typically rely on everything they stand against in one form or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

There hasn't been a lot of coverage on a tanker disaster in the East China Sea last month that was carrying condensate  - the "dil" in dilbit / diluted bitumen. Its currently threatening the fishing industry in a massive area between China and Japan.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/world/asia/china-condensate-oil-spill-tanker-cleanup.html

 

As it stands today, condensate cannot be cleaned up, so this is a very important test of our risk on the coast. If this spill shows condensate getting into the food chain I don't see how Alberta can justify the risk to BC and I could see the effects from this spill becoming a very important piece in a constitutional battle over who has the final say in projects that potentially threaten the economy of one province vs. another. 

 

Thoughts?

 

---

 

For this discussion please try to keep the "SJW" or "rig pig" comments to a minimum, thanks. 

Of course it is a risk.   Any movement of material is a risk but so is not moving material a risk.   Risks need to be balanced.   Consuming middle east oil is also a risk.   Being a Canuck fan is a risk.  Driver a car is a risk.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, chilliwiggins said:

Its not just between the government as Ive attached a doc. which makes things not so simple for Alberta's oil dreams    Aboriginal Title BC.pdf

Aboriginal Title BC.pdf

Read recently where a group of northern tribes, in response to the Northern Gateway Project being killed have an agreement to allow a pipeline across their lands in BC and an agreement with Alaska to allow the oil to be transported to a port there.   Should make for an interesting development with the Province, Feds, FIrst Nations and the US all involved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Of course it is a risk.   Any movement of material is a risk but so is not moving material a risk.   Risks need to be balanced.   Consuming middle east oil is also a risk.   Being a Canuck fan is a risk.  Driver a car is a risk.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Heretic said:

"There are 44,551 km of pipelines in B.C., and the majority carry natural gas (80%)."

 

Which one do you want to go to war for?

 

If you're really against them, then please stop using any products from them.  

 

Oh wait, I guess you don't really mean what you're saying...

No...you can still be against the expansion and the 7x increase in tanker traffic and not have to give up using fossil fuels. 

 

Getting 1/12th of the share for it is not worth the risk.  Alberta can pay up and then I'm game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...