We in Alberta would be insane to let this happen

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by Joe Fehr

If you read up on the proposed refinery they even say the environmental studies that are required will put the ground breaking about 10years away. That is what will eventually put this project out of the economical range. The costs of the studies, etc is all out of pocket for the company building it. Big gamble for a maybe if you ask me.

Personally I think the refinery proposal is just a smoke and mirrors attempt to try and placate some of those against the Gateway pipeline. This is a common practice in BC...bait and switch sort of tactic.

The idea of the bit going by pipeline is one thing, then it's compounded by the idea of tankering it on the west coast...the Gateway will never get support from a majority of BC residents, and trying to force it through would most likely lead to violent confrontations.

IF...and that is a big IF...building a refinery in Canada is viable I think building one closer to the source would be far easier to sell. The refined products are apparently easier to clean up [they float] and it's already been shown the products can be shipped relatively safely via rail. It's the potential clean up problems that seems to bother most people with the tanker ship issue also...so if it's true that refined products can be cleaned up easier...and in some cases they just evaporate...the selling of it would be far easier.

[dugh]

Last I heard was the Northern Gateway was on route "V", meaning (starting at route "A") the route has had 22 revisions. This was explained by Enbridge at the Community Advisory Board meeting in February. Also in my opinion there is not a market for refined product in other countries, only for crude. There are many refineries in Asia employing many asians and here we don't have the population to justify spending 10 to 20 billion on upgrader/refineries. Although the Northwest Refinery is starting construction in Sturgeon County this year with ultra low sulphur diesel the product. They have a contract with the province for BRIC (bitumen royalty in kind) and will be a big boon for the area.
Doug

[DarkAisling]

Originally Posted by Joe Fehr

One big issue is the UN treaty bull that Canada signed saying the First Nations get a say in everything that happens in Canada.

That's a very blanket statement. I know for a fact that they aren't consulted for everything we work on. Can you clarify further or perhaps provide a link to the specific treaty you're referencing? I'm curious about exactly what it reads.

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by DarkAisling

That is an absolutely brilliant example: especially for anyone involved in land surveying. In my very first land survey theory class this situation was presented and discussed in depth: to ensure that it wasn't repeated.

Having done extensive work on another federal case (in the office and court room, where I worked for the reserve and not the government), which was also very old (1922), I am personally very aware of the issues at hand.

Edit: While it is incredibly discouraging that these agreements have gone neglected and swept under the rug for so long, I do find it somewhat heartening that closure is being reached on some of them. In the case I worked on, industry had been compensated for the damage done and the lands destroyed nearly 100 years ago. The band had been promised compensation, but it wasn't forth coming.

It will come in time.....many aboriginals are getting excellent legal educations...and some are using them to the benefit of their people. From my observations it is apparent that our governments way of dealing with these issues is to do nothing, other than perhaps trying to placate the squeaky wheels and manipulate which leaders get elected to positions of influence within aboriginal organizations.

While on the other hand, our courts are moving closer and closer to supporting the legal claims of aboriginals on almost every case presented. See Powley etc...even one of the latest where C-31 was being used to deny aboriginal status....times are changing.

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by roughneckin

A lot of the opposition to these pipelines is essentially to just stop the oil sands all together.

I rarely hear anyone speaking out against the oil sands developments...fracing [spelling?] for natural gas sometimes, mostly due to water contamination and concerns over undisclosed chemicals being used in the process.

BUT there is a lot of anti Gateway pipeline talk...and a lot of anti bitumen filled ocean going tanker talk.

[ward]

When the BC voters toss the Liberals and vote in The NDP, will any of this Gateway talk still matter ?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle4414406/

[Joe Fehr]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

Personally I think the refinery proposal is just a smoke and mirrors attempt to try and placate some of those against the Gateway pipeline. This is a common practice in BC...bait and switch sort of tactic.

The idea of the bit going by pipeline is one thing, then it's compounded by the idea of tankering it on the west coast...the Gateway will never get support from a majority of BC residents, and trying to force it through would most likely lead to violent confrontations.

IF...and that is a big IF...building a refinery in Canada is viable I think building one closer to the source would be far easier to sell. The refined products are apparently easier to clean up [they float] and it's already been shown the products can be shipped relatively safely via rail. It's the potential clean up problems that seems to bother most people with the tanker ship issue also...so if it's true that refined products can be cleaned up easier...and in some cases they just evaporate...the selling of it would be far easier.

I totally agree with all of this. Once all parties involved agree this is a good idea suddenly the pipeline will be a good idea lol

Originally Posted by DarkAisling

That's a very blanket statement. I know for a fact that they aren't consulted for everything we work on. Can you clarify further or perhaps provide a link to the specific treaty you're referencing? I'm curious about exactly what it reads.

http://www.afn.ca/index.php/en/webin...indigenous-peo

I will say I have not read the entire treaty but it gives a lot of consultation to First Nations. I ran into it in BC already with water rights etc....

[DarkAisling]

Originally Posted by Joe Fehr

I will say I have not read the entire treaty but it gives a lot of consultation to First Nations. I ran into it in BC already with water rights etc....

Thank you very much.

I've got a bunch of batch files running right now, so I've got some time to do some reading.

I can see how water rights would be tricky, especially any waterbodies or courses populated with fish.

[Scar270]

Refined products are much more hazardous to ship. Raw crude is what you want to spill, if you are going to spill. A crude oil spill is less damaging then a salt water spill, much less gasoline et al. I am all for getting more value added here, but generally it doesnt make sense. If BC is building a refinery to produce refined products for a local market, that makes sense. Our refineries we have here sell products across the province, and make sense, but shipping gasoline by pipeline to texas is much more dangerous then shipping crude, from anything I understand.

[javlin101]

Remember the last time the Gov got involved in refineries, Husky Loyd, Alberta Gov wrote off their investment and the tax payers took the hit.

Irving Oil on the east coast is interested in Alberta Crude and can ship to all over the world after refining it.

[roughneckin]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

I rarely hear anyone speaking out against the oil sands developments...fracing [spelling?] for natural gas sometimes, mostly due to water contamination and concerns over undisclosed chemicals being used in the process.

BUT there is a lot of anti Gateway pipeline talk...and a lot of anti bitumen filled ocean going tanker talk.

Its the climate change side of the oil sands that they speak about that they are highly against.

[dantonsen]

contrary to popular belief alot of albertas tar production is upgraded. Suncor usually averages 330 000 bopd, syncrude 350 000bopd, cnrl horizon 110 000 bopd... Shell Scotford expansion is designed for 250 000 bopd( not sure if shell is at full capacity yet)

Thats over a million barrels of oil upgraded into synthetic light oil. Cnrl is finally going ahead with their upgrader/ deisel refinery by redwater so that will be another 150 000 barrels day capacity assuming they build all 3 stages.

There is alot of money and jobs in upgrading when it is done right. The value added per barrel figures can go up quite a bit. Not only is your barrel of tar worth 25-30$ more as a barrel of oil, the diliuent scavenging and re shipping can be done in Alberta, there are some rare chemicals that can be manufactured from the upgrader 'offgas' there is one plant by shell and Williams energy is building a new one and expanding an old one to take advantage of this opportunity.


I think alot of people dont see past the construction jobs etc. It is these large facilitys that provide the family freindly long term jobs we need in Alberta.... yeah sure a 150k/yr pipeline job is cool for a bit after some roughnecks and engineers got the wells in.

I would say look at the long term wealth generated by a plant, Most trades/operators/engineers etc make well over 100k year in a plant and employ a plethora of well paid contractors aswell..... oooooh and you still have to build pipelines to and from the plant.


It is in enbridges interests to build pipelines and line the stuff out, that is what they do. it is a business trying to capture revenue from our growth. It is one piece of the puzzle is what it should be not the end solution.

Refined products are much easier on a line to pump, I ve worked at one companys site and there are alot of bursts when trying to pump the super heavy tar over to the upgrader if your extraction plant is not right next door. Think of sucking on a fresh milshake with a straw... that is about the equivelent of putting tar in vs deisel or gasoline

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by lattery1

So our wonderful neighbors to the west are thinking they should build a refinery to process our dirty oil before it leaves the country. Why in the hell are we not shipping only refined products from Alberta to anywhere?? If we are going to be billions in debt anyhow shouldn't this be a legacy project for our tax dollars. I might just be a dumb Alberta well tester but it sure has hell makes more sense to build and refine it here than let the province of Bring Cash make $$$ off us. Lets ship refined products down the line.

Who should build the refineries?

Gov't or should gov't demand private enterprise build them?

[Fisherpeak]

Originally Posted by ward

When the BC voters toss the Liberals and vote in The NDP, will any of this Gateway talk still matter ?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle4414406/

I`m afraid the Dippers are getting in for sure.Christy Clark is a dumbazz and the Libs have just shot themselfs in the balls again.
As a bonus,the NDP will screw with hunting here.Much as Ihate it I have to hold my nose and vote Lib.I loath the NDP.

[Drewski Canuck]

There is an incredible amount of offshore oil and gas, as close as 3 miles from Winter Harbour. the Queen Charlotte Basin may have as much as the North Sea, based on test wells and probable reserve calculations.

This WILL get developed, and a very good location for refining is Kitimat, as it is close to the production area, and away from the "greens" in the Fraser Valley.

If the offshore oil is developed in the next decade, it will need a refinery.

Perhaps the point of observation should be Eastward looking, not Westward looking, and you will then understand another logical explanation for a refinery in Kitimat, and why a pipeline from Alberta is being opposed.

Regardless of NDP or Liberal governments, BC is broke, and the Province and the Feds know they have lots of oil to be developed.

All I can say is the sooner the better. The problem is all the land claims, and surprisingly enough, the first nations sea bed claims.

Drewski

[seymourpats]

Hmmm, B.C. is broke, ****ty, didn't realize that lol. It may not have the cash flow of Alberta, but it actually ranks fourth in Canada. Alberta has the highest revenues in north america and still is broke, if spending more than you earn means your broke. But Alberta does lead Canada in repossessions of vehicles, oh and crime n the workplace. Every province has something to offer, Alberta with its wonder full oil reserves that Canadians and others flock to work.because you don't have enough people, B.c. supplied the lumber to build your home, because those are just weed/ trees here. Sask and Manitoba feed us, along with yummy Alberta beef. I'm not sure about Quebec tho. Lol. Oh and thanks Newfies I'm gonna have some lobster, and spend more BC/Alberta money here in edmonton. Seven out ta ten of my neighbors in Seymour arm B.C. are former Albertans, all living there.

[Big Daddy Badger]

[QUOTE=seymourpats;1879054]

Originally Posted by lattery1

So our wonderful neighbors to the west are thinking they should build a refinery to process our dirty oil before it leaves the country. Why in the hell are we not shipping only refined products from Alberta to anywhere?? If we are going to be billions in debt anyhow shouldn't this be a legacy project for our tax dollars. I might just be a dumb Alberta well tester but it sure has hell makes more sense to build and refine it here than let the province of Bring Cash make $$$ off us. Lets ship refined products down the line.


If you don't like BC so much, I hope you aren't one of the tens of thousands that flock there every summer

Yeah...x2.

Of course the comment begs the question.... Why should the province of bring cash let Albertamericans profit by transporting their product over their lands and endangering their environment?

I would have expected that Albertans would think it was a good idea... both provinces getting what they want and keeping the cash and jobs in Canada but I guess not.

It's one for all and all for Alberta to some folks...

[greylynx]

Refinerys make about one to two percent on investment. Four percent for a really good one.

Do you want to invest in a return like that?

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Mutter87

You guys get some sort of greeen dollar subsidy from the Feds. Its not equalization, but some sort of back door Alberta drainin' money scheme.

Obviously its not YOU, but it is the province.

Wrong.

In fact... Alberta tourists probably spend less on average per day than most others... its pretty cheap to pull in with a trailer all stocked up for a week of fun.

A tank of gas a couple cases of beer and a fishing license isn't big money.

[seymourpats]

[QUOTE=pesky672;1880250]Wrong.

In fact... Alberta tourists probably spend less on average per day than most others... its pretty cheap to pull in with a trailer all stocked up for a week of fun.

A tank of gas a couple cases of beer and a fishing license isn't big money.[/QUOT

That's so true, if BC resident comes to Alberta, it jasper or Banff, where you are forced to pay. So bring cash

[MtnGiant]

Originally Posted by pesky672

Wrong.

In fact... Alberta tourists probably spend less on average per day than most others... its pretty cheap to pull in with a trailer all stocked up for a week of fun.

A tank of gas a couple cases of beer and a fishing license isn't big money.

Excellent point....
Being a BC native and now an AB resident.....I can see and feel the economic freedom....it's a huge relief.
And it's not an AB topic.
The oil sands run thru 3 provinces as I have read about.
It's a Canadian thing to the OP.
It's not just a selfish AB topic as you have so kindly stated your opinion mr OP