Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Is Unnecessary


dumpthemonarchy
#1
This pipeline is far too hasty, it shows we're slaves of international global capital.

1. We are shipping unrefined crude oil out of Canada and losing good jobs as a result
2. Current pipeline capacity will last until 2025
3. The chance of an oil spill is just too high


Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Is Unnecessary and Would Undermine Long-Term Energy Security of Canadians - MarketWatch (external - login to view)



Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Is Unnecessary and Would Undermine Long-Term Energy Security of Canadians



New Report Shows Existing Pipeline Capacity Is More Than Enough to Accommodate Significant Oil Sands Growth, While Delivering Global Market Prices






VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, Dec 20, 2011 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- A new report submitted to the Enbridge Northern Gateway federal review panel suggests the proposed Enbridge Gateway pipeline is unnecessary and puts the long-term energy security of Canadians at risk.

Commissioned by ForestEthics for the review, and authored by geoscientist, David Hughes, a former scientist and research manager with the Geological Survey of Canada, the report debunks many of the rationales Enbridge has put forth to justify its proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.

"The need for Northern Gateway is predicated on Enbridge's projection that oil sands production will be more than triple 2010 levels by 2035," says Hughes. "Sufficient export pipeline capacity already exists to accommodate oil sands expansion of 50% to 100% over 2010 levels by 2025. This pipeline is unnecessary as it is predicated on levels of oil sands production growth which would actually put Canadians' long-term energy security at risk."

The report recognizes that there is sufficient demand from the U.S. for Canada's projected export capacity and advocates conserving some of this non-renewable resource for Canadians, as opposed to exporting unrefined bitumen as quickly as possible, in the same way British Columbia exports raw logs.

The report also takes aim at the vaunted price differential between West Texas Intermediate and Brent Crude, often cited as a rationale for building the pipeline. The report notes that near-term pipeline expansions and reversals to the U.S. Gulf Coast will close the differential price by 2015, eclipsing the need for a West Coast pipeline route.

"Enbridge's rationale for the Gateway pipeline falls apart no matter what angle you look at - from price differentials, to risks to existing jobs," says Nikki Skuce, Senior Energy Campaigner with ForestEthics. "The need for this pipeline is pure fiction, but the risk of oil spills to affected communities and BC's coastline are all too real."

The energy return on energy invested (EROEI) is only going to decrease given that oilsands producers have targeted the easier to extract deposits first. Of projects currently "under development", which constitute 26 billion barrels, 88% are surface mineable, with an EROEI of 5.7:1, with only 12% recoverable by in situ methods, with an EROEI of 3.8:1 or less. Of the remaining purported 143 billion barrels, 92% are recoverable only by in situ methods. Thus expansion of oil sands production will require progressively higher energy inputs with correspondingly lower net energy yields to recover increasingly lower quality resources.

The report "The Northern Gateway Pipeline: An Affront to the Public Interest and Long Term Energy Security of Canadians" is being submitted by ForestEthics to the National Energy Board this week as part of the Joint Review Process.

For a copy of the report please contact Nikki Skuce, Senior Energy Campaigner: 250-877-7762
 
petros
#2
That's funny.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#3
Such a small sentence from such a small person.
 
Ron in Regina
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Commissioned by ForestEthics for the review....


That would be these folks:

Kevin Libin: When an oil sands boycott is not a boycott | Full Comment | National Post
 
dumpthemonarchy
#5
Boycotts don't seem to work. They make good points like why do we export so much raw product like crude oil and raw logs? Because biz sees a buck now. As mechanisation takes more and more jobs and the knowledge economy expanding, not to do so is simply exporting far too many jobs.

Alberta whined about the Natiional Energy Program by Trudeau in the 1980s, whining they had to sell their oil below world prices to eastern Canada and they didn't like this socialism. Now Alberta willing sells oil to the USA for the WTI price, which is lower than the North Sea oil price.

Oh I know what happened, they forgot to write the higher price into the contract, "Can't do nuthin' now podner, gotta sell cheap to our American buddies." Har har har.
 
Ron in Regina
#6
Can't sell Canadian oil to the American market for any more
than it's sold to the Canadian market. That's burried in the
NAFTA Argeement, I believe.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#7
I forgot, that could be the case. However it makes to sense to get top dollar for your product if you export large amounts of it.

Don't oil companies want the higher price? I don't get it. It's funny how biz has little to say how this could be a hidden subsidy to someone like the USA. Seems like a form of self-censorship on this issue.
 
Ron in Regina
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

I forgot, that could be the case. However it makes to sense to get top dollar for your product if you export large amounts of it.

Don't oil companies want the higher price? I don't get it. It's funny how biz has little to say how this could be a hidden subsidy to someone like the USA. Seems like a form of self-censorship on this issue.

They have to do business in the countries where the oil is
found, and are bound by the rules and agreements set up
by those countries.

www.worldtradelaw.net/nafta/chap-06.pdf (external - login to view) (see 605b)
 
dumpthemonarchy
#9
Ish a bit complicated. But what I understand is that the USA and Canada, but mainly the USA has decided it wants oil cheaper than the rest of the world. Are there two prices for copper or zinc? I don't think so.
 
Ron in Regina
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Ish a bit complicated. But what I understand is that the USA and Canada, but mainly the USA has decided it wants oil cheaper than the rest of the world. Are there two prices for copper or zinc? I don't think so.


Canada didn't sign onto that for copper & zinc. It did for
oil with the USA in NAFTA. When Mexico was entering
NAFTA at a later date, and was given the same clause,
it did the "Thanks but No Thanks!" thing...and that was
dropped in the agreement for Mexico before they signed.
That's just the way it is now.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#11
Its not clear at all to me how Canada and the USA made a deal thru NAFTA to sell a commodity for less than the world price. Two countries pay less than the other 190. To me it just looks like we give oil a subsidy and other forms of energy look more expensive as a result.
 
Ron in Regina
#12
Much of it really isn't clear to me either to be honest. It's
a done deal though...and I'm sure lawyers are still arguing
the meaning of specific clauses in the agreement years later,
and will forever. As of this point, Canada's in and isn't getting
out unless all signatories to NAFTA agree to drop Article 605,
and I just can't see that happening.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#13
Biz and govt bamboozles the public here for the good of international/global capital.

Article 605 means we can't sell less of a commodity to the USA. It has nothing to do with "two world prices" of crude oil.
 
petros
#14
These new lines are for selling on open market through the US not to the US.

Small people and their small minds have trouble understsanding that.
 
Omicron
#15
I heard that the proposed pipeline has something to do with keeping some existing Texas oil refineries in production. Somebody with vested interests in those Texas refineries has big push.

Refineries could be built in northern Alberta for less than the cost of a pipeline, but, evidently, the cost of operation would be more than the cost of a pipelines because Canadian oil refinery workers won't work as cheep as Mexicans in Texas.
 
Dixie Cup
+1
#16
From what I've read, we are building refineries here in Alberta and upgrading the ones we have here. It seems that the capacity that will come out of the Oil Sands is far greater than we can ever use, thus the XL and Northern pipelines. Can anyone confirm this?

Just askin'
 
petros
+2
#17  Top Rated Post
The Upgraders (much different than refineries) have been/are being put into place to do this years ago. Instead of tankers coming in with Arab and Venezuelan crude they be leaving to Europe and Asia with oil instead of coming to Texas with oil.

Northern line will send oil to Japan, China, Malaysia, S.Korea, etc

P.S. saplings that were hugged 25 years ago are ready to do be and will be harvested to make room for the route. Cool huh?
 
Omicron
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Dixie CupView Post

From what I've read, we are building refineries here in Alberta and upgrading the ones we have here. It seems that the capacity that will come out of the Oil Sands is far greater than we can ever use, thus the XL and Northern pipelines. Can anyone confirm this?

Just askin'

Cannot confirm, but if true, that's very, very, very interesting.

It would mean that nobody in Canada is loosing jobs because of the pipeline. It would mean we've employed as many as we have, and it's still not enough.

It would mean they're actually going to do it. They're actually going to gear up for full, all-out tar-sands extraction.

When I was a kid we were told about the tar-sands in hypothetical terms. We were told that theoretically it had as much oil as Arabia, yet even as a kid I felt like it was blue-sky dreaming to think about extracting all of it.

If what you are saying is true, then they are really going for it.

That is amazing. We're talking about moving enough soil to make the Great Wall of China look like a kid's Lego project.

Okay, now I'm a bit freaked, and I don't know where to begin, so I might as well jump in and hope the audience is together enough to get the point.

If leadership of a project on this scale consists of sliver-spooned brats, unable to see and/or care about the effect of things on the big scale, then they will destroy the Arctic Ocean, for starters. The waters draining into the Mackenzie Delta do not have the natural chemical buffers required to handle large amounts of sulfur. Just one of those tailing ponds breaking could toxify fish in the arctic enough to make them inedible. Ever wonder where that fish sold as MacDonald's fish-burgers comes from? It's coming from Russians harvesting the arctic ever since the Nancies at DFO let Captain Hindgrinder bum-**** them into letting the cod fishery be destroyed.

Parallel to that we have coal extraction from the Appalachian mountains. It used to be that Appalachian coal was dug from mines, but now they blow up the whole mountain and pick up the pieces. By the time they're done, the Appalachian mountains will not exist. A whole mountain range destroyed for coal, and it's not Sci-Fi... it's happening. The issue is not just because it destroys the scenery... it's because it changes the water-flow, such that the residents get hit with floods from changes to runoff patterns like never before.

In the mean time, we do need the energy. Either we invent machines capable of running on much less fuel, or we invent better ways of gathering that fuel, and the pin-hole Capitalists in Armani-suited pride cannot think of any way to do it other than what they know already. They hope and trust that some researcher-type will invent better ways for them to make profits and help society as a side-effect, but wait... funding for research is being cut because along came as many nit-wits making false claims to being researchers as are there Armani-suited nit-wits sucking the silver spoon, such that nobody is getting anywhere, such that all we have left to do is blow up the Appalachians and kill the Arctic.

I just don't get it. When I was a kid I hooked up an AC to DC transformer and stuck some wires in some water. From those wires bubbled oxygen and hydrogen. I collected the hydrogen and put a flame to it. The energy was amazing.

I have driven through the American south-west, and all I see is square-mile after square-mile of sunshiny land, too hot and dry to live on.

If one were to erect huge ceilings of solar panels over that area, it would collect enough energy to keep LA dancing, plus it would shade the land enough to make it livable, plus, because it's dry, it would be naturally healthy, such that we could build irrigated brooks to water pomegranate trees. Under that shade it would be naturally warm and dry, and we could walk around naked if so desired.

We could break dependence on Islamic oil, stop carbonating the oceans and atmosphere, have all the energy we need, and build an Eden, yet for some twisted reason beyond comprehension, so many people let dumb dark methods control their thinking, and some seem to enjoy it.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

The Upgraders (much different than refineries) have been/are being put into place to do this years ago. Instead of tankers coming in with Arab and Venezuelan crude they be leaving to Europe and Asia with oil instead of coming to Texas with oil.

Northern line will send oil to Japan, China, Malaysia, S.Korea, etc

Wow... that means they're going to be extracting enough not to just feed the American market, but Asia as well.
Last edited by Omicron; Dec 24th, 2011 at 02:49 PM..
 
petros
#19
We'll be selling to the world babycakes. CDN Dollar is going to a take a jump in the reserve currency markets.
 
Omicron
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

We'll be selling to the world babycakes. CDN Dollar is going to a take a jump in the reserve currency markets.

I seriously hate to ask, but what are "babycakes"?
 
petros
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by OmicronView Post

I seriously hate to ask, but what are "babycakes"?

Cupcakes or small bite size cakes. A term of endearment.
 
Ron in Regina
+2
#22
Good. 'Cuz I didn't know either, & Googled it....



....and wasn't any clearer on the definition. Also found
one weird Youtube video that didn't help any either.
 
Omicron
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Cupcakes or small bite size cakes. A term of endearment.

Then I am confused.

What does the concept of cupcakes have to do with exporting tar-sands?
 
petros
#24
Ever tried making cupcakes wihout using energy or some form?
 
Ron in Regina
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Ever tried making cupcakes wihout using energy or some form?


Ahhhhh....(Light Bulb goes on)
 
Omicron
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Ever tried making cupcakes wihout using energy or some form?

I've never tried doing *anything* without using energy in some form.

I seriously apologize, but I'm not getting the point.
 
petros
+1
#27
You've gotta remember this one from having Detroit cable Ron.

Best Commercial Ever; Highland Appliance - YouTube (external - login to view)

50 watts per channel babycakes!

Quote: Originally Posted by OmicronView Post

I've never tried doing *anything* without using energy in some form.

I seriously apologize, but I'm not getting the point.

It's a term of endearment.
 
Omicron
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

You've gotta remember this one from having Detroit cable Ron.

Best Commercial Ever; Highland Appliance - YouTube (external - login to view)

50 watts per channel babycakes!

It's a term of endearment.

Okay, I just watched the ad, which is good and should go into a time capsule, but I'm still not seeing how it relates to all-out extraction of the tar-sands, and why we couldn't have an Eden based upon walking under solar-panels spread above the American south-west.
 
petros
#29
Who ever claimed this was to be all tar sands oil?
 
Omicron
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Who ever claimed this was to be all tar sands oil?

It's tar, and it's blended with sand. What else could it be called?
 
no new posts