South Portland moves to block Alberta bitumen from reaching its port


mentalfloss
#1
South Portland moves to block Alberta bitumen from reaching its port

Moratorium blocking port development to ship crude could be made permanent

South Portland, Maine, could be the first U.S. city to pass a law to block Alberta oilsands crude from getting anywhere near its waterfront.

The city of 25,000 people is turning into a test case for local communities that don’t want oilsands bitumen shipped from their ports.

Tom Blake, the former mayor of South Portland, gave CBC News a tour of his city this week where a temporary moratorium has been imposed on any new structures used by oil companies to help load oil from a pipeline on land, to oil tankers in their port for export.

“We have no interest in having the world’s dirtiest oil come through our community," said Blake, who currently sits on city council.

South Portland sits across the bay from Portland, Maine. It’s the third-largest oil port on the U.S. East Coast.

It has provided imported oil by pipeline to Canada since 1941, when it was built to help provide a safe source of energy to this country during the Second World War.

The oil moves north from Maine through New Hampshire to Montreal via the Portland Montreal Pipeline, a subsidiary of the Canadian parent company that is owned by three companies involved in the Alberta oilsands: Shell, Suncor and Imperial Oil.

In 2008, the company applied for a permit to reverse the flow of the pipeline to bring Canadian oil to the U.S. east coast.

The plan was scrapped because of the recession and there is no current project on the books. But the company president Larry Wilson has been quoted as saying he is looking for every opportunity to revive the plan.

“The current president has stated publicly many times and to me personally that he would love to bring tarsands to South Portland,” said Blake.

So when Canada's National Energy Board approved the reversal of Enbridge's Line 9B to bring oilsands bitumen east to Montreal in early March, many in South Portland figured it was only a matter of time before that oil would be heading south to their port for export.

"They want to use the existing infrastructure because they're not getting their other pipes done as quickly as they want to," said Crystal Gooderich, a spokeswoman for local citizen's group Protect South Portland.

Last fall the group of residents formed a vocal anti-oilsands campaign and narrowly lost a citywide vote on a restrictive new ordinance on all waterfront development.

But it was enough to convince the city to pass a six-month moratorium in November on proposals to build new structures to transfer oil onto marine vessels.

Portland Pipeline's original plan included two 21-metre industrial stacks on the city's scenic waterfront to burn off gas from the piped oil before its transfer to a tanker.

The council may extend the moratorium for a further six months to allow a committee to draft an ordinance for a permanent ban.

South Portland moves to block Alberta bitumen from reaching its port
Last edited by mentalfloss; Mar 28th, 2014 at 05:13 AM..
 
captain morgan
+3
#2  Top Rated Post
I don't see that they have much of a voice in this matter... The bitumen will be shipped through Kitimat in the West and NFLD in the East.
 
B00Mer
+1
#3
Let the Yankee Bastards Freeze in the Dark. lol

 
captain morgan
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by B00Mer View Post

Let the Yankee Bastards Freeze in the Dark. lol

Sweet!!!

Is that a pic of Ralphie?
 
petros
+1
#5
They aren't getting any bitumen. Where did the idea bitumen was being piped down energy east come from?

Stupidity or just nobody in journalism has a f-cking clue?
 
captain morgan
+2
#6
Really doesn't matter that much. The (former) mayor is already of the mindset that it is "the world's dirtiest oil ".... I am still waiting for someone, anyone, to provide an example of what is the world's cleanest oil.

I suspect that I will be waiting for a very long time
 
petros
#7
I wager my lunch that Irving in Portland upgrades Venezuelan Orinoco heavy.
 
mentalfloss
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Really doesn't matter that much. The (former) mayor is already of the mindset that it is "the world's dirtiest oil ".... I am still waiting for someone, anyone, to provide an example of what is the world's cleanest oil.

I suspect that I will be waiting for a very long time

It's rhetoric to be sure but isn't the consensus that crude is better?
 
petros
#9
It is crude.

Heavy crude oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Heavy crude oil is closely related to natural bitumen from oil sands. Petroleum geologists categorize bitumen from oil sands as "extra-heavy oil" due to its density of less than 10 °API.[8]

Seeeeeee
 
mentalfloss
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

It is crude.

Heavy crude oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seeeeeee

Okay, I'm no expert in oil production but I'm pretty sure there is evidence about the way bitumin is extracted which makes it more environmentally harmful.

That's as far as I understand it.
 
petros
#11
What makes it more harmful?
 
B00Mer
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Sweet!!!

Is that a pic of Ralphie?

Yup.. my new Avatar..

To bad there are not more politicians like Ralphie.. politics would be so much more interesting and shyte would get done.
 
mentalfloss
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

What makes it more harmful?

Dunno.

Here's what I found on wiki. Feel free to critique.



Oil sands extraction can affect the land when the bitumen is initially mined, water resources by its requirement for large quantities of water during separation of the oil and sand, and the air due to the release of carbon dioxide and other emissions.[52] Heavy metals such as vanadium, nickel, lead, cobalt, mercury, chromium, cadmium, arsenic, selenium, copper, manganese, iron and zinc are naturally present in oil sands and may be concentrated by the extraction process.[53] The environmental impact caused by oil sand extraction is frequently criticized by environmental groups such as Greenpeace, Climate Reality Project, Pembina Institute, 350.org, MoveOn.org, League of Conservation Voters, Patagonia, Sierra Club, and Energy Action Coalition.[54][55] In particular, mercury contamination has been found around tar sands production in Alberta, Canada.[56] The European Union has indicated that it may vote to label oil sands oil as "highly polluting". Although oil sands exports to Europe are minimal, the issue has caused friction between the EU and Canada.[57] According to the California-based Jacobs Consultancy, the European Union used inaccurate and incomplete data in assigning a high greenhouse gas rating to gasoline derived from Alberta’s oilsands. Also, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Russia do not provide data on how much natural gas is released via flaring or venting in the oil extraction process. The Jacobs report pointed out that extra carbon emissions from oil-sand crude are 12 percent higher than from regular crude, although it was assigned a GHG rating 22% above the conventional benchmark by EU.[58][59]

In 2014 results of a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showed that official reports on emissions were not high enough. Report authors noted that, "emissions of organic substances with potential toxicity to humans and the environment are a major concern surrounding the rapid industrial development in the Athabasca oil sands region (AOSR)." This study found that tailings ponds were an indirect pathway transporting uncontrolled releases of evaporative emissions of three representative polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)s (phenanthrene, pyrene, and benzo(a)pyrene) and that these emissions had been previously unreported.[60][61]

Oil sands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
captain morgan
+2
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

It's rhetoric to be sure but isn't the consensus that crude is better?

'Crude' is the general term for all unrefined oil.

Within that spectrum is a spectrum of grades. Bitumen is heavier; general definition: Bitumen >= H-C72; more carbon molecules attached to the hydrogen molecule that has a far different viscosity. For comparison, West Texas Intermediate (WTI) may be in the range of H-C 20.

In addition to the above generalization, additional contaminants like sulphur and ash content differentiates the various grades.

There are a lot of factors in this, but the above is a base starting point
 
petros
+2
#15
Sure are a lot of could, mights and mays in that wiki write up.

Since there is no bitumen going down this pipe WTF is the problem?
 
Locutus
+1
#16
Maybe mentalfloss can contact that CBC political 'reporter' that wrote the environmental piece and ask her.

cbc
 
petros
+2
#17
If you live in E Canada or NE USA this is where your oil comes from. The second largest watershed on the planet.

 
taxslave
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

They aren't getting any bitumen. Where did the idea bitumen was being piped down energy east come from?

Stupidity or just nobody in journalism has a f-cking clue?

Facts don't matter to NIMBYS. Getting TV time does.
Wonder if they asked the opinion of the people whose jobs they are taking away?
 
petros
#19
Or war torn places like Angola




Or Iraq

 
taxslave
+2
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

What makes it more harmful?

Certain people do not own shares.
 
petros
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Facts don't matter to NIMBYS. Getting TV time does.
Wonder if they asked the opinion of the people whose jobs they are taking away?

It's only half a million jobs opening up in the next 10 years. Canada doesn't need another half a million good paying jobs.


PS if you're heading up to Kittymat be prepared to be working with TFWs
 
taxslave
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

It's only half a million jobs opening up in the next 10 years. Canada doesn't need another half a million good paying jobs.


PS if you're heading up to Kitty at be prepared to be working with TFWs

The only TFW on our project are senior managers and engineers. Most from the US and some from Europe. Not sure on the LNG projects as they are non union.
 
mentalfloss
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Locutus View Post

Maybe mentalfloss can contact that CBC political 'reporter' that wrote the environmental piece and ask her.

cbc

 
Locutus
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

No you.

I'm busy reading about Don Adams. Did you know he was a drill instructor?


Annnnyway...
 
petros
+1
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

The only TFW on our project are senior managers and engineers. Most from the US and some from Europe. Not sure on the LNG projects as they are non union.

Ledcor

Quote: Originally Posted by Locutus View Post

No you.

I'm busy reading about Don Adams. Did you know he was a drill instructor?


Annnnyway...

Get Smart Don Adams?
 
Locutus
#26
oui.
 
mentalfloss
#27
So we can we post inspector gadget pics now?
 
EagleSmack
+3
#28
I am just so excited that South Portland has become completely independent of fossil fuels.

Right?
 
petros
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Locutus View Post

oui.

Instetesting fellow?

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

So we can we post inspector gadget pics now?

Too bad your're too young to remember Get Smart.
 
taxslave
+1
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

I am just so excited that South Portland has become completely independent of fossil fuels.

Right?

Now if they would just quit using toilet paper. And disposable diapers.
 

Similar Threads

0
UFOs sighted in south Alberta sky: Report
by spaminator | Mar 21st, 2014
58
Alberta moves to export water!
by cyberclark | Jan 18th, 2011