Kinder Morgan pipeline activity and protests

[Heretic]

A lot less than an oil pipeline.

Transporting via train and transport trucks pollutes way more than a pipeline.

How msny provinces are polluting MORE than the Alberta tar sands?

None.

Combined greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for Ontario and Quebec were lower in 2012 than in 1990 by about 16 megatonnes (Mt) (10 Mt for Ontario and 6 Mt for Quebec). Emissions in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Colombia were higher in 2012 than in 1990 by 31 Mt, 80 Mt and 11 Mt respectively. The top five emitters (Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan and British Columbia) together released almost 90% of Canada’s national total of 699 Mt of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂ eq) in 2012.

Ontario’s GHG emissions were higher than those from the other provinces in 1990 because of its large manufacturing industry. Alberta’s emissions subsequently surpassed Ontario’s, increasing 47% since 1990, primarily because of the increase in production of petroleum resources for export markets. Ontario’s emissions were reduced between 1990 and 2012 primarily because of the closure of coal-fired electricity generation plants. In 2012, the combined emissions from Alberta and Ontario represented 60% (36% and 24%, respectively) of the national total of 699 Mt.

The provinces of Quebec and British Columbia, which rely on abundant hydroelectric resources for their electricity production, show more stable emission patterns across the time series and a decreasing pattern since 2005. Quebec exhibits an 8.5% (7.3 Mt) decrease from its 2005 emissions level; while British Columbia shows a decline of 3.5% (2.2 Mt). In contrast to these decreases, emissions in Saskatchewan increased by 5.1% (3.7 Mt) between 2005 and 2012, as a result of activities in the oil and gas industry as well as potash and uranium mining.

https://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicators/default.asp?lang=en&n=18F3BB9C-1

I ask you this - where do you think Canada would be economically without the Tar Sands?

[Mr. Ambien]

Transporting via train and transport trucks pollutes way more than a pipeline.

None.

Combined greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for Ontario and Quebec were lower in 2012 than in 1990 by about 16 megatonnes (Mt) (10 Mt for Ontario and 6 Mt for Quebec). Emissions in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Colombia were higher in 2012 than in 1990 by 31 Mt, 80 Mt and 11 Mt respectively. The top five emitters (Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan and British Columbia) together released almost 90% of Canada’s national total of 699 Mt of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂ eq) in 2012.

Ontario’s GHG emissions were higher than those from the other provinces in 1990 because of its large manufacturing industry. Alberta’s emissions subsequently surpassed Ontario’s, increasing 47% since 1990, primarily because of the increase in production of petroleum resources for export markets. Ontario’s emissions were reduced between 1990 and 2012 primarily because of the closure of coal-fired electricity generation plants. In 2012, the combined emissions from Alberta and Ontario represented 60% (36% and 24%, respectively) of the national total of 699 Mt.

The provinces of Quebec and British Columbia, which rely on abundant hydroelectric resources for their electricity production, show more stable emission patterns across the time series and a decreasing pattern since 2005. Quebec exhibits an 8.5% (7.3 Mt) decrease from its 2005 emissions level; while British Columbia shows a decline of 3.5% (2.2 Mt). In contrast to these decreases, emissions in Saskatchewan increased by 5.1% (3.7 Mt) between 2005 and 2012, as a result of activities in the oil and gas industry as well as potash and uranium mining.

https://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicators/default.asp?lang=en&n=18F3BB9C-1

I ask you this - where do you think Canada would be economically without the Tar Sands?

They don't care. And thus why they're ignored. Without the tar sands, Canada's economy sucks even worse than it already does. Tends not to matter to people who are already having their lifestyles paid for with my tax money.

[Electro Rock]

I wonder if there's any oil sands competitors secretly supporting these protests as is the case with with so many environmental causes?

[freebuddy]

Transporting via train and transport trucks pollutes way more than a pipeline.

Which wasn't what that quote was about, it was about an alternative fuel.

I ask you this - where do you think Canada would be economically without the Tar Sands?

Alberta to become less of a people magnet as other economies perk up

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/provincial-economies-central-canada-lags-bc-in-albertas-shadow/article19193442/?service=mobile

[NatureBoy]

How do you know she relies that much on oil? Given the choice, alot of people would prefer to live off the grid.

That is the basics. Living in heated house, transportation (public, your own car, airplanes), many of our plastic products give off a lot of pollution when made, and many other things.

[WilliesStache14]

By that measure, the pipeline shouldn't be built, zero people showed up to support it.

maybe the people who actually support it have better things to do rather than try and get themselves on tv and get attention.

[Mr. Ambien]

maybe the people who actually support it have better things to do rather than try and get themselves on tv and get attention.

Their votes speak for itself.

[Warhippy]

They don't care. And thus why they're ignored. Without the tar sands, Canada's economy sucks even worse than it already does. Tends not to matter to people who are already having their lifestyles paid for with my tax money.

I just want to say.

I find it funny that when people claim that Alberta is making so much money, that the pro crowd states it isn`t so much compared to the rest of the countries GDP

But when they are defending their polluting record it is always shut it down and lose the money.

Not poking at you Ambien don`t worry, just a general notice. Both sides seem to have the most ridiculous bits of hypocritical turn about when faced with an alternative argument don`t they?

[Mr. Ambien]

I just want to say.

I find it funny that when people claim that Alberta is making so much money, that the pro crowd states it isn`t so much compared to the rest of the countries GDP

But when they are defending their polluting record it is always shut it down and lose the money.

Not poking at you Ambien don`t worry, just a general notice. Both sides seem to have the most ridiculous bits of hypocritical turn about when faced with an alternative argument don`t they?

I just want to say it's thanks to regulation that I had my last job. Apparently to some enviro nuts, regulations don't exist in Alberta.. or aren't stupid enough for their liking.

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

Does anyone actually know how much energy is used to convert Bitumen to synthetic crude ? Or the fact you need to add light-crude or a natural-gas condensate just for it to be pumped through a pipe ? Even thought Canadian tar sands oil represents 70% of the worlds estimated supply It is a fruitless endeavor that is poisoning all of Alberta and everything down stream of it.

"The average "energy returned on investment," or EROI, for conventional oil is roughly 25:1. In other words, 25 units of oil-based energy are obtained for every one unit of other energy that is invested to extract it.

Tar sands retrieved by surface mining has an EROI of only about 5:1. Tar sands retrieved from deeper beneath the earth, through steam injection, is even worse, with a maximum average ratio of just 2.9 to 1. That means one unit of natural gas is needed to create less than three units of oil-based energy."

http://www.postcarbon.org/publications/drill-baby-drill/

interesting read^^^

Tar sands oil is primarily imported to the U.S. from Canada (the number one supplier of U.S. oil imports),although it has recently been approved for development in Utah. It is low-net-energy oil, requiring very high levels of capital inputs (with some estimates of over $100 per barrel required for mining with upgrading in Canada) and creating significant collateral environmental impacts.

Additionally it is very time- and capital-intensive to grow tar sands oil production, which limits the potential for increasing production rates.Production growth forecasts have tended to be very aggressive, but they are unlikely to be met owing to logistical constraints on infrastructure development and the fact that the highest quality, most economically viable portions of the resource are being extracted first.

The economics of much of the vast purported remaining extractable resources are increasingly questionable, and the net energy available from them will diminish toward the breakeven point long before they are completely extracted....

[Violator]

To bad SAGD is so freaking expensive I think the break even point on most of them are 65$ a barrel

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

To bad SAGD is so freaking expensive I think the break even point on most of them are 65$ a barrel

..and it is much worse environmentally

Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage, like other thermal extraction processes, is the subject of widespread controversy due to the process being considered particularly environmentally destructive and carbon intensive ^[7][8] and has been claimed to release 2.5 times more carbon dioxide than traditional oil sands surface mining would use to produce the same amount of oil.

[Violator]

..and it is much worse environmentally

Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage, like other thermal extraction processes, is the subject of widespread controversy due to the process being considered particularly environmentally destructive and carbon intensive ^[7][8] and has been claimed to release 2.5 times more carbon dioxide than traditional oil sands surface mining would use to produce the same amount of oil.

Surface mining is what people hate the most without it there wouldnt be as much controversy and people saying its dirty oil.

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

Surface mining is what people hate the most without it there wouldnt be as much controversy and people saying its dirty oil.

They are retards then because it is the least polluting of the three drilling/mining styles for bitumen lol.

[Violator]

They are retards then because it is the least polluting of the three drilling/mining styles for bitumen lol.

The companies that do it to hate it cause they have to pay so much money for everything and the labour to do it

[freebuddy]

maybe the people who actually support it have better things to do rather than try and get themselves on tv and get attention.

Like crying about protesters on a message board.

[freebuddy]

I just want to say it's thanks to regulation that I had my last job. Apparently to some enviro nuts, regulations don't exist in Alberta.. or aren't stupid enough for their liking.

Then you should quit your job, that's government intervention in the marketplace. You libertarians don't want that.

[freebuddy]

That is the basics. Living in heated house, transportation (public, your own car, airplanes), many of our plastic products give off a lot of pollution when made, and many other things.

In 1931, the same year he died, Edison told his friends Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone: Id put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we dont have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that.

http://environment.about.com/od/renewableenergy/a/thomas_edison.htm

[freebuddy]

Burnaby seeks to force Kinder Morgan to pay for cleanup, policing

Canadian Press | December 18, 2014

Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan wants Kinder Morgan to pay $1 million to $2 million policing costs

The city of Burnaby, B.C. is asking the National Energy Board to hand Kinder Morgan a bill that could be worth more than $2 million for policing and cleanup costs after pipeline work was targeted by protesters last month.

Environmental activists set up a makeshift encampment in a conservation area on Burnaby Mountain, east of Vancouver, in an attempt to block crews from conducting drilling and survey work related to its proposal to expand the Trans Mountain pipeline.

The company obtained a court injunction ordering protesters to clear two drilling sites. Dozens of officers with the RCMP and other police agencies were on the scene for over a week, arresting more than 100 people by the time the work was finished.

Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan, who has been a vocal opponent of the planned pipeline expansion, has publicly said the company, not taxpayers, should be on the hook for policing costs.

The city wrote the National Energy Board a letter earlier this month, indicating it plans to seek an order from the board forcing Kinder Morgan to pay for the entire police bill, which it estimates to be between $1 million and $2 million, as well as any work required to restore the conservation area where the work occurred.

When Trans Mountain went to B.C. Supreme Court for an injunction against the public, and sought and received authority to engage a police presence in the conservation area it did so knowing the likely consequences, says the citys letter, dated Dec. 5.

The presence of many police officers has resulted in further damage to the conservation area at great public expense, much of which will be paid by Burnaby. Large areas of the conservation area were fenced off, and the public road was fully closed. More areas of the park were trampled.

The letter says the company was required by the energy board to do as little damage as possible during its work. The city, however, says there was extensive damage that went well beyond what the company had initially promised.

The citys letter does not include a final tally of the cleanup costs.

The company submitted its own response to the board, saying it is prepared to pay for cleanup and remediation work while suggesting police costs are the responsibility of the city.

A letter written by a company lawyer says the city could have mitigated the damage to the mountain by enforcing bylaws that the protesters were breaking. Those include bylaws preventing anyone from setting up a structure in a city parks or damaging trees, shrubs and parkland.

Instead, Burnaby, having sat on its hands, now turns to Trans Mountain for compensation for damage caused by third parties, the letter says.

The letter goes on to say it was the protesters, not the company, that prompted the need for such a significant police presence.

Trans Mountain is not in control of third parties who decided to break the law, the letter says.

The police were required to maintain public order and safety. Policing costs are a service provided to taxpaying citizens and corporations in Burnaby, including Trans Mountain, to protect their lawful rights.

The companys letter says that Kinder Morgan is prepared to pay for cleanup work, even for damage caused by the protesters, and it is open to negotiating with the city on that issue.

However, the company says it would be premature for the city to demand money before the cleanup work is finished and a final cost is determined. Also, the company says the National Energy Board Act outlines a process for such compensation, which includes a period of negotiation followed by arbitration, which hasnt happened.

The National Energy Board wrote the city on Dec. 12 indicating that the board wont do anything until it receives the citys formal application.

The Trans Mountain pipeline currently carries Alberta crude to a waterfront terminal in Burnaby. If approved, the expanded pipelines capacity would triple, allowing it to transport 900,000 barrels of oil a day.

Opponents have warned about the possibility of a spill, either from the pipeline or the increased tanker traffic it would require. They also cite larger environmental concerns around Albertas oilsands.

By James Keller of The Canadian Press

http://beaconnews.ca/blog/2014/12/burnaby-seeks-force-kinder-morgan-pay-cleanup-policing/