Trudeau cabinet approves Trans Mountain, Line 3 pipelines, rejects Northern Gateway

[Adorkami]

So we now have the legal battles between the federal and provincial governments that taxpayers get to pay for? What happens if NDP wins the next Federal election? If BC is able to delay things would Singh end up cancelling it as he has already voiced his opposition to it?

[Traum]

The NDP has no chance of winning at the federal level for the next election.

At this point, I think a minority government with the Liberals or the Cons are the most likely outcome.

[DragonChi]

Originally Posted by jasonturbo

I would suggest it’s the responsibility of the city to select and engage competent contractors - if they did that there would be no need to babysit.

In this case, had the city engaged a more competent contractor, they probably wouldn’t have grenaded the pipeline.

The fact remains that it’s the ground disturbers responsibly not to cause damage to existing utilities, I’m sure we can agree on that seeing as you’re familiar with people constantly violating the city via line strikes.

I thought Binnie was a pretty sizable firm. They seem to be a top place to work at.


In response to the posts above, yeah NDP has no chance of winning a federal election. I'd be surprised if they won the Ontario election coming up.

[welfare]

i doubt libs will make it past next election. and cons will probably sell the pipe.
after tax dollars have gone into it, of course

[welfare]

looks great for future potential investors. a little turbulence and the gov will just invest in/bailout the whole shooting match.

[stewie]

Originally Posted by jasonturbo

I would suggest it’s the responsibility of the city to select and engage competent contractors - if they did that there would be no need to babysit.

In this case, had the city engaged a more competent contractor, they probably wouldn’t have grenaded the pipeline.

The fact remains that it’s the ground disturbers responsibly not to cause damage to existing utilities, I’m sure we can agree on that seeing as you’re familiar with people constantly violating the city via line strikes.

I agree 100% that the ground disturber is responsible to not cause damage. In this case Burnaby never had a shovel in their hand. The only time they would take part in construction is to tie the two ends together as that's the only thing a contractor can not do - touch live infrastructure.

Back on track now.


This is a lose lose situation in my mind. We buy a pipeline, it'll cost a lot more than expected and when it comes time to sell they'll take a huge loss and be lucky if they can even break even.

[MG1]

Originally Posted by originalhypa

Hopefully it's not a pipe dream

Bwahahahaha.................

Couldn’t find the “I see what you did there,” meme.

[GS8]

Still remember when that oil spill happened in Burnaby back in 2007

My favourite photo

Spoiler!

#murderedout #oilbasedpaint

[twitchyzero]

that looks pretty good

[whitev70r]

So now you and I own the Trans Mountain Pipeline. I get the feeling that the majority of people are OK with building the pipeline and that all this legal wrangling and delays are a royal waste of time and taxpayer's money.

[jasonturbo]

I don't mind the idea of the gov owning/operating the asset, mind you I despise KMC and their toxic internal culture.. so anything would be an improvement.

What I do mind is the gov taking over the project without putting the brakes on it for a year or so to review and revise the design, procurement, and contracting strategies.

It is my opinion that many of the business and operation risks KMC is comfortable with will not be, and should not be palatable to the government.

They will struggle to find a buyer for Transmountain with a final price tag of 16-20B... so I'm guessing the gov will be in for the long haul with a crown corp, or a corp that is entirely owned by CPP etc.

Details are sparse but I'm told that KMC will retain the Westridge Terminal and Edmonton Terminal, effectively maintaining control of both ends of the pipeline(s). I would imagine they kept the terminals because they provided safe and reliable operating margins that were attractive to KMC... personally I think Westridge terminal should have been part of the package.

Anyway, as stated above, details remain very sparse at this time... will be interesting to see how it plays out. I will say that 4.5B for 1000km of 300k bbl/day pipeline isn't the worst deal in the world, to build that new today would be close around 7-9B.

[stewie]

If it goes through and KM no longer owns the pipe or terminal what happens to it's current employees? Switch them over or lay them off and hire all new?

[jasonturbo]

Originally Posted by stewie

If it goes through and KM no longer owns the pipe or terminal what happens to it's current employees? Switch them over or lay them off and hire all new?

Companies are usually very good with respect to taking care of their operations personnel, I'm sure between the gov and KMC they will be taken care of.

But to answer directly, I'm not sure anyone knows what will happen the employees.

I was told last week that KMC Houston was 100% done with the project, so over the last week or two the gov and KMC obviously scrambled to get the "deal" done. I very much doubt they have had the chance to hammer out almost any fine details, staffing turnover included. Nothing will be finalized until the EOY IMO, far too many details to sort out.

[jasonturbo]

Bit of an update (Provided anyone cares),

With respect to the Federal gov's purchase of Transmountain, they actually got a pretty good deal, the 4.5B price paid includes the existing line 1, abandoned line 1, all pump stations, Burnaby Terminal, Westridge Terminal, Sumas Terminal, Kamloops terminal, and a portion of the Edmonton Terminal.

Allegedly when negotiations started KMC wanted 6B, the Feds were able to get them down to 4.5B, 1.1B for the TMEP and 3.4B for the existing assets... assets that currently generate about 350M/year.

The TMEP will continue under the existing management team with some minor changes in personnel, rumour is that an independent Canadian EPC firm (Likely SNC) will be engaged by the feds to provide independent oversight, to what degree nobody knows - Though we can assume it will primarily be for controls/finances.

Feds will be providing the project with a 2B credit facility to get things moving, things will ramp up noticeably during late July/early August.

As was publicly communicated, there is a desire to sell the Transmountain to a pension fund etc... I believe the goal is to complete the sale before the 2B credit facility is exhausted.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by jasonturbo

Meh, gotta suck this shit out of the ground now, 30 years from now it may be virtually worthless.. then we will see how great Canada's economy really is.

I was kind of neutral regarding the whole pipeline thing, but reading this article that has popped up on my feed a few times, has swayed me toward anti-pipeline side. https://www.nationalobserver.com/201...-oil-expansion

Can one of you guys in the industry offer any critique? I'm an absolute layman but do want to be properly informed before taking a side. I get its an opinion piece, but it does bring up several points:
-by the time (if) the TM expansion is completed, the economies and needs may very well be different from how it is today
-the tarsands bitumen is a low grade product, selling at a low grade price. If there is increased competition/buyers, the price may increase in the short term. BUT
-TM expansion will shift the choke point from delivery of the bitumen to shipping it away via tankers; mega tankers will not be part of the plan here SO
-oil consumers can buy a higher grade product from the US, which will be more efficiently (cheaply) shipped making the Alberta oil that much less appealing

To me if feels like Alberta is trying to get back to the good ol' days by bleeding every drop of oil the sands have to offer. It seems many are aware this is not sustainable yet the 'get it while it lasts' sentiment is strong. But what if extracting and refining that oil just doesn't make financial sense at some point down the line? What's the fall back plan then?

To add to that, I'm also not thrilled about the tripling of tanker traffic in our local waterways. Personally it feels like there are a crap load of tankers and ships in the inlet as is.

Those are my main concerns, and none of them revolve around spills and the environmental implications. And we haven't even accounted for the middle East's ability to turn up production at the snap of a finger and the effect it would have on the value of Alberta bitumen

[jasonturbo]

I would start by telling you that the source of information is typically quite biased against Oil and Gas (National Observer).

Consider the landing page:

"Leaked letter reveals Kinder Morgan broke rules for months before Canadian officials noticed company put marine life in danger"

First of all, it's not a leaked letter, it's on public record.

I am familiar with the issue described in the letter, simply put, there were a number occasions where a device called a "bubble curtain" used to suppress underwater noise created by marine piling operations was not able to reduce the noise cause by pile driving to a level that was acceptable. In addition to this, the regular reporting of underwater noise to the regulator somehow got missed for a period of 2-3 months.

For what it's worth...

The same group of people building the Westridge Marine terminal also constructed the Port Mann bridge, on the Port Mann project there was no requirement to monitor underwater noise levels and/or a maximum allowable noise level. As always, oil and gas construction is held to a much higher standard due to the public eye.

Having said that...

Yes the construction contractor did, on a number of occasions exceed the maximum allowable underwater noise levels, and yes, on a number of occasions KMC failed to report these instances. Though I will say that this sort of issue is inevitable, as you are piling there will be instances where you go from say 80db to 100db for an instant as you contact certain geological features, by the time the bang happens there is nothing you can do about it. The purpose of monitoring is to identify trends, there was never an instance to date where an excessive noise measurement was recorded for a period exceeding 60 seconds.

Perfection during construction is a lot to ask for.

Originally Posted by UFO

I was kind of neutral regarding the whole pipeline thing, but reading this article that has popped up on my feed a few times, has swayed me toward anti-pipeline side. https://www.nationalobserver.com/201...-oil-expansion

Can one of you guys in the industry offer any critique? I'm an absolute layman but do want to be properly informed before taking a side. I get its an opinion piece, but it does bring up several points:
-by the time (if) the TM expansion is completed, the economies and needs may very well be different from how it is today

Of course the economy will look different in three years, it's entirely possible there will be no need for ANY pipelines at all in 3 years.. but that is highly unlikely.

-the tarsands bitumen is a low grade product, selling at a low grade price. If there is increased competition/buyers, the price may increase in the short term.

"Tar sands bitumen" is a derogatory term create by anti-oil folks, it's not as if the crude produced by CNRL (Highly processed, yellow in color, very thin) is the same as crude produced by Jacos (Lightly processed, black in color, very thick). There are standard crude classifications such as WCS (Western Canadian Select) and WTI (West Texas Intermediate) but there is no classification for "tar sands bitumen". Never mind the crude classifications you see in futures contracts, most of these producers are selling to specific downstream customers based on an agreed upon chemical composition that may not technically be identical to any typical classification IE: WCS or WTI.

The price of "tar sands bitumen" varies significantly depending on producer, end user, and the nature of the contract to purchase.

99% of our oil exports end up in the USA because we don't have any means of getting the oil to global markets, globals markets where a barrel of oil typically cost more IE: Brent crude vs WTI crude spread. With sufficient access to global markets what we will now be able to market our oil to more customers, if customers in Asia are willing to pay more we will sell the oil to them vs. refiners in Louisiana etc.

-TM expansion will shift the choke point from delivery of the bitumen to shipping it away via tankers; mega tankers will not be part of the plan here

It's one shipping terminal with a maximum daily delivery of 900BBL, that effectively works out to two tankers per day. There are three shipping berths being installed, there won't be a tanker bottle neck. It's not as if the world currently has a shortage of tankers, and it's not as if more can't be built.

-oil consumers can buy a higher grade product from the US, which will be more efficiently (cheaply) shipped making the Alberta oil that much less appealing

Higher grade product is relative, it's not what grade the product is that matters, it's what your refinery is configured for. You can ship high priced synthetic crude to some refiners and it will hurt their operational eficiency as they don't have the capacity to process the "lights" that will come from a "higher grade crude".

They can make crude as "high quality" as they want in Canada, it's just a matter of upgrading, additives, diluents etc. It's not as if the oil that comes out the Bakken region is made by jesus, it's sour AF... Any open pit mining in the oil sands produces sweet crude, some deep SAGD produces sour crude.

To me if feels like Alberta is trying to get back to the good ol days by bleeding every drop of oil the sands have to offer. It seems many are aware this is not sustainable yet the get it while it lasts sentiment is strong. But what if extracting and refining that oil just doesn't make financial sense at some point down the line? What's the fall back plan then?

Better sell it while we can, it makes up a significant chunk of our GDP.

The nominal contribution to the GDP by the energy sector is 9.9% or 187B annually, 68B of which from Alberta, or what equates to 3.6% of our GDP.

Peel out conventional oil and gas and you can easily assume that the oil sands contributes well over 2% to our GDP, if we were to lose that it would be the equivalent of losing the "Accommodation and Food Services" Sector - Imagine the economic impact of every single hotel and restaurant in the country disappearing.

The Canadian Economy at a Glance | InvestorsFriend

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/facts...-economy/20062

To add to that, I'm also not thrilled about the tripling of tanker traffic in our local waterways. Personally it feels like there are a crap load of tankers and ships in the inlet as is.

I would agree with this point, I can't imagine anyone being excited about more tanker traffic, but hey, we're one country, tow the fucking line for once would you?

Alberta has been the single greatest contributor to equalization payments for as long as I can remember... by screwing Alberta you indirectly screw the people of Quebec that give us wonderful things line maple syrup and trashy french women.

Those are my main concerns, and none of them revolve around spills and the environmental implications. And we haven't even accounted for the middle East's ability to turn up production at the snap of a finger and the effect it would have on the value of Alberta bitumen

Don't worry about the evil genius arabs manipulating the price of oil, they don't want to be giving the shit away either, that's exactly why oil is back around 60-70/BBL.

At the end of the day people have a right to be concerned, but at the same time, if you drive a car, if you use petroleum products, please don't bitch and moan like a typical NIMBY.

There is no historical Canadian example of a catastrophic pipeline/tanker failure that has ruined the land etc. Shit is regulated AF here... how many other countries would send you hate mail for hurting the fishes ears?

[UFO]

Thanks for the detailed response, i's a nice counterpoint. I've probably grossly over simplified how the global oil industry works based on what I read in that article.

The article seems to strongly imply that the oil being extracted in Alberta is less desirable. I guess my concern is that there comes a point where we can saturate the market with this product that it becomes an issue of over supply which further drives it's own value down.

Because our oil is apparently more expensive to extract, more expensive to process and refine, and more expensive to ship and deliver, I wonder how worthwhile the TM expansion will be in the medium and long run. Once again, maybe I have over simplified things.

99% of our oil exports end up in the USA because we don't have any means of getting the oil to global markets, globals markets where a barrel of oil typically cost more

With the current infrastructure, why is this? The existing pipeline brings the oil to the terminal where it can be loaded into tankers and sold to whoever pays their most, no? It's not like there are no terminals and tankers right now.

Better sell it while we can, it makes up a significant chunk of our GDP

Would our oil become less appealing/sellable sooner than oil sourced from else where? So lets say hypothetically the pipeline expansion is completed in 5 years. Its used for a good 5-10 years before whatever market condition comes around and makes our oil unsellable (which you seem to acknowledge is on the horizon). So how does Canada replace this significant driver of GDP at that time?

Once again really appreciate the insider perspective. I don't think I'm NIMBYing, the root of my concern is the economic feasibility/sustainability of the expansion. Especially now that I'm a part owner of the pipeline, and governments typically think and plan in 4 year cycles with little concern or care for consequences 20-30 years down the road. Another part of me wonders if Horgan is playing hardball to hold out for a bigger slice of the pie; the consensus seems to be that BC is bearing a large chunk of the risks associated with the expansion, but our direct payoff is low. What is the $$ that will turn Horgan around, there is always a dollar figure that makes everything right.

[Traum]

As something of a background picture, Germany is planning to stop selling ICE cars (within their country) by 2030, and California by 2040. Before those deadlines hit, it is conceivable that ICE cars will still be very mainstream, and vehicle nowadays can generally last 10 - 15 years in relative ease. With those general assumptions, we can probably say ICE cars will at least remain strong for another 15 - 25 years.

So as far as economic potential is concerned, another 15 - 20 year run seems pretty good to me. Or at least, you can't ignore the practical and economical needs of a popular product for the next 15 - 20 years.

[stewie]

Originally Posted by jasonturbo

At the end of the day people have a right to be concerned, but at the same time, if you drive a car, if you use petroleum products, please don't bitch and moan like a typical NIMBY.

What about those who bitch and complain for other reasons? Those who actually ARE the NIMBY people.

proximity permit

Page 3 - ANY ground disturbance within 100ft/30m needs a permit. For those who live on certain streets where the pipe line runs under the sidewalk, have fun applying for a permit every time you want to do some gardening. Permits aren't a free pass. They're only good for x amount of days. If those same people wanted to build a new fence they'll need to get a separate permit. It can be quite the hassle for the average person who's never had to do it before. Living in a house and having your own piece of land but being told you can't do anything without their permission first. 30m in each direction from the pipe. It affects quite a few people. Even if you're not on the same block you still need their permission just because you may be in the vicinity.

There's people who use petroleum products who bitch but the others who are directly impacted and bitch are the ones I feel sorry for.

[jasonturbo]

Disclaimer(s)

- I try to be as fair and accurate as possible in these responses.
- I don't believe that polluting the earth (Burning fossil fuels) is a good thing.
- There is a tremendous amount of "fake news" around pipelines, especially this project.

Originally Posted by UFO

With the current infrastructure, why is this? The existing pipeline brings the oil to the terminal where it can be loaded into tankers and sold to whoever pays their most, no? It's not like there are no terminals and tankers right now.

The oil is actually sold many months in advance, generally if you are a downstream customer (Refiner) you are looking to secure a steady supply of crude to feed your facility, the contracts for these agreements generally distribute the financial risk associated with increase/decrease in "market" oil prices by creating a contract with certain conditions or limits to pricing. So while Oil might be @ 60$/BBL today, a contract that was signed 18 months ago might be structured as follows:

36 Month Agreeement
300KBBL/Day @ 55.00/BBL
Additional BBL's @ Market Price

Even though the price of 55$/BBL 18 months ago was say 5$/BBL greater than market price, it fixes the price so that if oil increase to say 70$/BBL after 24 months the impact to the refiner is minimal, at the same time, if oil drops to say 45$/BBL, the impact to the producer is minimal. By creating fixed price contracts it provides both businesses with certainty that alleviates financial risks etc.

Grossly simplified, but that's how it works.

FYI of the last 12 ships @ the KMC terminal, 5 inbound shipments of aviation fuel from Long Beach CA, 7 outbound shipments of crude to California.

Would our oil become less appealing/sellable sooner than oil sourced from else where? So lets say hypothetically the pipeline expansion is completed in 5 years. Its used for a good 5-10 years before whatever market condition comes around and makes our oil unsellable (which you seem to acknowledge is on the horizon). So how does Canada replace this significant driver of GDP at that time?

We're presently using almost 100M BBL/day globally, that kind of demand is going to take a very very long time to dry up.

Don't worry about how our oil compares to oil sourced elsewhere, we can upgrade/process it as needed before shipping to satisfy the requirements of the customer. Besides, there are other important factors that must be considered - Transport costs, political tensions, trade agreements etc.

You have to remember that oil is bought and sold directly (for the most part) between producers and refiners, though many of them are integrated (IE: Suncor produces and ships the oil down to the Suncor "Petro Canada" refinery etc) it's not like the gov of Canada sells the oil to the Gov of Korea etc... it's all B2B.

There is something to be said for diversifying out economy so that we don't "depend" on the contribution made by O&G, but that process takes time, our economy needs to evolve organically, and I would suggest that the 2% Oil Sands GDP contribution does not hinder the rest of the economy nearly as much as the 14% Real Estate, Renting, and Leasing sector.

RE not exportable and therefore does not generate real wealth for Canadians, it's just more debt for Canadians. Tragically this is the single biggest sector of our GDP, and the real reason why Canada will endure long term economic heart ache. People blame the lucrative careers associated with oil and gas for preventing smart kids from entering advanced/futuristic job markets that will contribute to long term economic prosperity, I would argue that the data tells us those kids are more likely to end up in Real Estate, Renting, and Leasing.

Once again really appreciate the insider perspective. I don't think I'm NIMBYing, the root of my concern is the economic feasibility/sustainability of the expansion. Especially now that I'm a part owner of the pipeline, and governments typically think and plan in 4 year cycles with little concern or care for consequences 20-30 years down the road. Another part of me wonders if Horgan is playing hardball to hold out for a bigger slice of the pie; the consensus seems to be that BC is bearing a large chunk of the risks associated with the expansion, but our direct payoff is low. What is the $$ that will turn Horgan around, there is always a dollar figure that makes everything right.

Horgan is politicizing the issue, polls unanimously suggest that the majority of BC supports the project. You also have to remember that Horgan must appease the Greens to stay in power.

Until "green" energy become more feasible (AKA companies can make money off it) we will continue to use a lot of oil.

Originally Posted by Traum

As something of a background picture, Germany is planning to stop selling ICE cars (within their country) by 2030, and California by 2040. Before those deadlines hit, it is conceivable that ICE cars will still be very mainstream, and vehicle nowadays can generally last 10 - 15 years in relative ease. With those general assumptions, we can probably say ICE cars will at least remain strong for another 15 - 25 years.

So as far as economic potential is concerned, another 15 - 20 year run seems pretty good to me. Or at least, you can't ignore the practical and economical needs of a popular product for the next 15 - 20 years.

Those are deadlines supported by the current governments, there is a lot of time for policy change to take place before those deadlines arrive.

IMO we have at least another 20-30 years before our demand for oil really drops off, again Oil needs to get more expensive before "green" energy is the more attractive option. You think oil is expensive? Imagine how expensive electricity will be when oil is outlawed and everything that used to burn hydrocarbons to generate electricity must buy electricity. I used to work for one of the major Canadian energy companies in the renewable energy group, we could barely make money on wind farms w/ government subsidies, look at what people in Ontario are paying for electricity due the govt's retarded pursuit of green energy.

In the long term the world will move away from petroleum products just a we've moved away from coal fired power generation.

Having said all that, I do think we will see a major shift over the next 10-15 years in which traditional ICE vehicles lose a tremendous amount of market share to hybrids and EV's.. though I would suggest it will mostly be super-efficient hybrids, less so EV's.

The future will suck for vehicle enthusiasts, roads too busy, cars too boring, too much traffic etc... mass transit will be more popular than ever.

Originally Posted by stewie

What about those who bitch and complain for other reasons? Those who actually ARE the NIMBY people.

proximity permit

Page 3 - ANY ground disturbance within 100ft/30m needs a permit. For those who live on certain streets where the pipe line runs under the sidewalk, have fun applying for a permit every time you want to do some gardening. Permits aren't a free pass. They're only good for x amount of days. If those same people wanted to build a new fence they'll need to get a separate permit. It can be quite the hassle for the average person who's never had to do it before. Living in a house and having your own piece of land but being told you can't do anything without their permission first. 30m in each direction from the pipe. It affects quite a few people. Even if you're not on the same block you still need their permission just because you may be in the vicinity.

There's people who use petroleum products who bitch but the others who are directly impacted and bitch are the ones I feel sorry for.

The original Transmountain was built in the 1950's, I would suggest that NONE of the current residents owned homes in the area before the line was built. You moved there knowing there was a giant terminal and then you have the audacity to complain about it?

The land owners directly affected by the new pipeline routing are being COMPENSATED VERY WELL by KMC. I would suggest to you that any of the people bitching are the ones that live a block way from the ROW that didn't get paid.

If there is one thing I've learned about this business it's that everyone bitches and moans until you give them ENOUGH money, then they shut up and never return.

[whitev70r]

To me, it's kind of simple, either pipeline or rail ... oil is going to be moved either way. And I do care about the environment. So what is the safer and more efficient option out of the two? Given that spills, rail accidents are bound to happen? Pipeline.

Stop wasting time and money, the protest groups are small/tiny. Get on with building the thing and implement a good plan to know when a leak/spill happens asap, contain it - shut down portions affected by leak, and have a good effective recovery plan.

[stewie]

Originally Posted by jasonturbo

The original Transmountain was built in the 1950's, I would suggest that NONE of the current residents owned homes in the area before the line was built. You moved there knowing there was a giant terminal and then you have the audacity to complain about it?

The land owners directly affected by the new pipeline routing are being COMPENSATED VERY WELL by KMC. I would suggest to you that any of the people bitching are the ones that live a block way from the ROW that didn't get paid.

If there is one thing I've learned about this business it's that everyone bitches and moans until you give them ENOUGH money, then they shut up and never return.

Correct, it was built in the 50's. In Burnaby I know EVERY street jet fuel pipelines run on, not just KM. These aren't basic generic maps you can google. These are maps given to me from them directly. I know the general age of certain houses on those routes just by knowing when the other infrastructure was built and installed and there's plenty of houses that surpass the 50's and have seniors tell me they've lived there all their life or now adults who were handed down the house by their parents. If you really get bored the Burnaby website has a section where you can view overhead aerial photos and photos of streets from well before the 50's with the houses on them. You can see the spots before KM came in and after.


Do you know what the compensation is for the homeowner? It's a one time lump sum payment. If you don't know I'll ask them next time I talk to them which will be within the next 24 hours probably. Buying a house beside a terminal is one thing. Buying a house on a small side street not being told theirs a pipeline running across the street and now half your yard can only be worked on with their permission is another. I don't know if a realtor would happen to even know the locations or distances to inform someone buying. It's just one small detail though. Shouldn't be to much of a problem.

[jasonturbo]

Originally Posted by stewie

Correct, it was built in the 50's. In Burnaby I know EVERY street jet fuel pipelines run on, not just KM. These aren't basic generic maps you can google. These are maps given to me from them directly. I know the general age of certain houses on those routes just by knowing when the other infrastructure was built and installed and there's plenty of houses that surpass the 50's and have seniors tell me they've lived there all their life or now adults who were handed down the house by their parents. If you really get bored the Burnaby website has a section where you can view overhead aerial photos and photos of streets from well before the 50's with the houses on them. You can see the spots before KM came in and after.


Do you know what the compensation is for the homeowner? It's a one time lump sum payment. If you don't know I'll ask them next time I talk to them which will be within the next 24 hours probably. Buying a house beside a terminal is one thing. Buying a house on a small side street not being told theirs a pipeline running across the street and now half your yard can only be worked on with their permission is another. I don't know if a realtor would happen to even know the locations or distances to inform someone buying. It's just one small detail though. Shouldn't be to much of a problem.

Very unlikely anyone bought their home before the terminal was built, do the math:

Terminal construction start date was 1951, if someone bough at house in 1950 at the age of 18 they would be 85 years old today, that exceeds the topically life expectancy. Plus they've spent many years being exposed to "highly toxic" terminal air so they probably died of rare cancers 30 years ago etc.

The compensation for each homeowners is confidential, I know what the overall budget it and I know the total number of parties being compensated.

What's the point in discussing the encroachment requirements of KMC while ignoring the encroachment requirements of Fortis/City of Burnaby etc? They are all fairly typical, they don't want homeowners driving fenceposts into their infrastructure. There is nothing stopping a potential homeowner from contacting one-call to determine what is buried on/around property they are looking to buy.

Though I'm not sure why you bring the jet fuel line up, with respect to the jet fuel line, KMC can't wait for the YVR to get their new jet fuel terminal/pipeline sorted out so they can decommission it.

I'm not going to keep responding to you, I get it, you work for the city of Burnaby and you don't want the pipeline to go through.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by Traum

As something of a background picture, Germany is planning to stop selling ICE cars (within their country) by 2030, and California by 2040.

Do they have plans to have the infrastructure needed to support that? I have a feeling their electrical grids will end up pushed to the limit and they'll end up having to abandon this plan.

[stewie]

Originally Posted by jasonturbo

Very unlikely anyone bought their home before the terminal was built, do the math:

Terminal construction start date was 1951, if someone bough at house in 1950 at the age of 18 they would be 85 years old today, that exceeds the topically life expectancy. Plus they've spent many years being exposed to "highly toxic" terminal air so they probably died of rare cancers 30 years ago etc.

The compensation for each homeowners is confidential, I know what the overall budget it and I know the total number of parties being compensated.

What's the point in discussing the encroachment requirements of KMC while ignoring the encroachment requirements of Fortis/City of Burnaby etc? They are all fairly typical, they don't want homeowners driving fenceposts into their infrastructure. There is nothing stopping a potential homeowner from contacting one-call to determine what is buried on/around property they are looking to buy.

Though I'm not sure why you bring the jet fuel line up, with respect to the jet fuel line, KMC can't wait for the YVR to get their new jet fuel terminal/pipeline sorted out so they can decommission it.

I'm not going to keep responding to you, I get it, you work for the city of Burnaby and you don't want the pipeline to go through.

Hand me down homes. Their parents bought, they got old and passed the house to the kids.

The difference with notifying them on encroachment from KMC and Fortis etc is the amount of the fine and severity of it. And let's be honest here. How many people actually even know about one-call? It's got commercials on the radio and tv but out of everyone I know maybe 90% of them have done work without even knowing what it is. Home owners/contractors/plumbing companies etc. How many people on here have ever even thought to make a call to them?

When I'm saying jet fuel pipeline I'm speaking of any and all oil pipelines running under the ground whether it's KMC/Parkland etc. affecting new and old existing home owners.

I may work for Burnaby but I could give 2 shits about the pipeline now. I've stated my concerns before. If you know the overall budget and amount of parties being compensated is it safe to assume that you have some sort of involvement in it? If so doesn't that make us both seem a bit biased towards our replies to everyone?




If you don't want to respond to me that's fine. You voice what you have to say and I'll voice what I have to say. If you want to stomp your feet and walk away when I don't agree with your views then so be it.