Connect with us

Alberta

Garfield Marks; “Oil-by-Seaway” proposal still draws interest.

Published

18 minute read

The proposal to by-pass Quebec in shipping oil to refineries in New Brunswick via Thunder Bay then shipping through the St. Lawrence Seaway still has legs.

Nov 9 2019, Comments by D.B. Chalcroft on the

PROPOSAL TO SHIP OIL TO EASTERN CANADA VIA ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY by Garfield Marks

Garfield Marks published his “Oil-by-Seaway” and it has subsequently been covered in the CBC media and more recently on CHQR 770 radio.

The Garfield Marks “Oil-by-Seaway” Proposal

Concept – To replace the eastern half (about 2600 km) of the proposed Energy East Pipeline with tanker shipping from Thunder Bay via the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway to St. John, New Brunswick.

The Energy East pipeline proposed by TC Energy in 2014, would have converted about 3000 km of the existing natural gas pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to the Ontario-Quebec border, to diluted bitumen transportation; and would have built 1600 kms of new pipeline from the Ontario-Quebec border to St. John, New Brunswick. The capacity of the pipeline was to have been 1.1 million barrels (200,000 tonnes) of crude oil per day, was estimated to cost $12 billion, and at 4600 km would have been the longest pipeline in North America. TC Energy subsequently cancelled the project in October 2017, citing regulatory rule changes. In addition the Government of Quebec has stated that there is no social license for the Energy East pipeline through Quebec.

“Oil-by-Seaway” Tanker Shipping Option

The “Oil-by-Seaway” proposal would include converting 2000 km of the existing TC Energy Natural Gas pipeline from Hardisty, Ab, to Thunder Bay to carry diluted bitumen, and creating a new oil tanker shipping system from Thunder Bay through the existing St Lawrence Seaway and by ocean to the major Irving oil refinery at St. John , NB.

The existing St. Lawrence Seaway has more available shipping capacity than is presently being utilized. During the 1970s and 1980s, cargo shipments from Thunder Bay, for example, averaged about 20,000,000 metric tonnes per year with between 850 and 1470 vessels per year leaving the port. Since 2009 cargo shipments from Thunder Bay have averaged only about 8,000,000 tonnes/year on some 400 vessels per year.

The existing locks in the St. Lawrence Seaway at the Welland Canal and near Montreal, impose length, width, and draft, size restrictions (maximums of 225.5 m long by 23.8 m wide and draft of 8 m) on the vessels that can use the Great Lakes shipping system. The maximum size of bulk cargo that can be shipped through the system is about 29,000 tonnes per Seaway-capable ship – these ships are known as “lakers”.

The St Lawrence Seaway averages about 275 days of navigation per year – the other 90 days being closed to shipping due to winter conditions.

In order for “Oil-by-Seaway” shipping to deliver the 1,100,000 BPD (200,000 tonnes per day) of oil to the St John, NB terminal as envisaged by Energy East, in a shipping season of 275 days, would require the daily shipping deliveries to be 265,000 tonnes/day during the navigation season. This would require close to 10 “laker-tankers” per day to unload at St. John, NB. Assuming the turn-around time for a “laker-tanker” from Thunder Bay to St. John to Thunder Bay is about 16 days including 2 days for loading and unloading – means that a fleet of about 160 “laker-tankers” would be required to achieve this delivery commitment, plus storage facilities at St John of about 100,000,000 barrels.

The Welland Canal currently has about 1500-1800 vessel transits each way per year, or on average 5-7 transits per day each way. However in 1960 the total number of vessel transits was as high as 4500 each way (an average of 16 /day) although vessels were smaller carrying an average of only 3,400 tonnes of cargo. The Oil-by-Seaway proposal would add 2700 passages per year bringing the total to around 4500 per year or 16 per day each way, very similar to the 1960 record rate albeit with larger average vessel sizes.

Ballpark Cost Estimate for 160 Laker-Tankers

What would it cost to create a fleet of say 160 “Laker-tankers”? As a very rough comparison, the three Newfoundland Off-shore Shuttle Tankers that pickup roughly 230,000 BPD (47,000 tonne/day) of oil production from the five producing platforms on the Grand Banks, cost a reported $375,000,000 (ie $125M/ship)in 2016, and have a deadweight of 148,000 tonnes and gross tonnage of 85,000 tonnes each, meaning each ship can carry up to about 60,000 tonnes of cargo (oil) . These three Shuttle Tankers deliver the 47,000 tonne/day of Grand Bank oil production to the trans-shipment terminal at Whiffen Head, NL with an average turn-around time of 3-5 days . A rough cost estimate for the Laker-Tankers can be obtained by taking $125M X 29,000 t/ 60,000 t = $60 million. Therefore the cost of one “Laker-tanker” with 29,000 tonne capacity is estimated to be in the order of $60 million, and a fleet of 160 Laker-tankers would be in the ballpark of $10 billion.

Discussion

The St. Lawrence Seaway is currently handling 20-25 million tonnes of cargo per year through the Welland Canal in the Downbound direction, ie towards the east, with total transits of 1400 – 1900 per year. Oil-by-Seaway to equal the Energy East proposal of 200,000 tonnes per day would add 73,000,000 tonnes/yr. to the Downbound traffic. This is a significant increase to nearly 100,000,000 tonnes/year and 16 vessel transits per day each way, through the Seaway System. It would appear that the present Seaway infrastructure may be able to accommodate this magnitude of increase without major upgrades, because it doesn’t exceed the historical highs in vessel transits which occurred in the 1960s. This would need to be confirmed with the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation.

The Oil-by-Seaway proposal would require a fleet of 160 or so “Laker-Tankers” which most likely don’t currently exist, and which would cost in the order of $10 billion . This concept would also require the creation of about 100,000,000 bbl. of incremental oil storage capacity at St. John, NB, that probably wasn’t part of the Energy East proposal, to cover the 90 days each year when the Seaway is closed.

Utilizing the existing Seaway Infrastructure to transport oil by tanker would reverse a long trend of declining commodity traffic through the Seaway system. This scheme could create the impetus to update and modernize Seaway facilities, and could also reinvigorate the communities along the Seaway, with substantially more economic activity in their midst.

Fabricating 160 Laker-Tankers could provide a significant workload for Canada’s ship-building industry, perhaps including the Davie Shipyard in Quebec, and the Irving shipyard in Halifax.

There are undoubtedly many other technical, social, environmental, and regulatory issues to be identified and considered, as well as whether this concept is commercially viable.

Preliminary Conclusion

On the surface, the Garfield Marks “Oil-by-Seaway” proposal seems to have sufficient merit to warrant a more thorough analysis than presented herein.

 

Comments by: David B. Chalcroft, P. Eng.

Previously published;

 

We have not been able to run our bitumen through a pipeline to a refinery in New Brunswick. There has been resistance in parts of Ontario and in Quebec. What if we came up with another plan. Would we consider it? There will be road blocks, but not insurmountable, would we consider it?

Yes how about Thunder Bay?

Thunder Bay, Ontario, the largest Canadian port of the St. Lawrence Seaway located on the west end of Lake Superior, 1850 kms. from Hardisty, Alberta. A forgotten jewel.

So what, you may ask.

They used to ship grain from Thunder Bay in huge tankers to ports all over the world. Why not oil?

The Saint Lawrence Seaway ships fuel, gasoline and diesel tankers, to this day.

We could run oil tankers to the Irving refinery in New Brunswick, bypassing the controversial pipeline running through eastern Ontario and Quebec.

The pipeline, if that was the transport model chosen, would only need to run through parts of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. Like, previously stated the pipeline would only be 1850 kms. long.

The other great thing about Thunder Bay is the abundance of rail lines. Transportation for such things as grain and forestry products from western Canada. If you can’t run pipeline from Hardisty, through to Thunder Bay, use the railroad.

Why Hardisty, you may ask.

Hardisty, according to Wikipedia, is mainly known as a pivotal petroleum industry hub where petroleum products such as Western Canada Select blended crude oil and Hardisty heavy oil are produced, stored and traded.

The Town of Hardisty owes its very existence to the Canadian Pacific Railway. About 1904 the surveyors began to survey the railroad from the east and decided to locate a divisional point at Hardisty because of the good water supply from the river.

Hardisty, Alberta has the railroad and has the product, the storage capacity, and the former Alberta government planned on investing $3.7 billion in rail cars for hauling oil while Thunder Bay has the railroad and an under utilised port at the head of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Economics are there along with opportunity, employment would be created and the east coast could end its’ dependency on imported oil.

Do we have the vision or willingness to consider another option. I am just asking for all avenues to be considered.

In my interviews in Ontario there is a willingness to discuss this idea.

The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation is still reviewing the idea of shipping crude oil from western Canada through its system, and it’s a long way from happening, according to Bruce Hodgson, the Seaway’s director of market development.

“Obviously, there needs to be an ongoing commitment on the part of a producer, and so that’s going to be required for any project of this nature,” he said.

We could consider it, could we not?

CBC NEWS did a story about this idea on March 7 2019;

A retired oil field worker in Alberta has “floated” a novel solution to Alberta’s oil transportation woes: pipe the bitumen to Thunder Bay, Ont., then ship it up the St. Lawrence Seaway to the Irving oil refinery in New Brunswick.

Marks’ proposal might be more than a pipe dream, according to the director of the Queen’s Institute for Energy and Environmental Policy.

‘I don’t think that it’s a totally nuts idea’

“I don’t think that it’s a totally nuts idea,” Warren Mabee said. “I think that there’s some flaws to it … but this is an idea that could work in certain circumstances and at certain times of year. … It’s not the craziest thing I’ve ever heard.”

The chief executive officer of the Port of Thunder Bay said shipping oil from the port “could easily be done.”

“We ship refined gasoline and diesel up from Sarnia. We’ve done that for many many years,” Tim Heney told CBC. “So it’s not something that’s that far-fetched.”

There are, however, plenty of potential drawbacks to shipping crude through the Seaway, Mabee explained, not least of which is the fact that it isn’t open year-round.

The need to store oil or redirect it during the winter months could be costly, he said.

Potential roadblocks

Another potential pitfall is capacity, he added; there may not be enough of the right-sized tankers available to carry the oil through the Seaway.

Finally, he said, the journey by sea from Lake Superior to the Irving refinery in New Brunswick is a long one, so it might make more sense to transport the product to a closer facility such as the one in Sarnia, Ont.

The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation is still reviewing the idea of shipping crude oil from western Canada through its system, and it’s a long way from happening, according to Bruce Hodgson, the Seaway’s director of market development.

“Obviously, there needs to be an ongoing commitment on the part of a producer, and so that’s going to be required for any project of this nature,” he said.

So far, no producer has come forward seeking to ship crude through Thunder Bay, he said.

Asked about the possible environmental risks of shipping oil on Lake Superior, both Hodgson and Heney said shipping by tanker is relatively safe; Hodgson noted that any tankers carrying the product would have to be double-hulled, and crews are heavily vetted.

Time to rethink pipelines?

There hasn’t been a spill in the Seaway system for more than 20 years he said.

Nonetheless, Mabee said, the potential for an oil spill on the Great Lakes could be a huge issue.

“The St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes have a lot of people living in close proximity, a lot of people who rely on it for drinking water,” he said. “There’s a delicate ecosystem there. I think a lot of people would push back against this proposal simply from that perspective.”

 

In fact, one of the reasons Mabee appreciates Marks’ proposal, he said, is because it invites people to weigh the pros and cons of different methods of transporting oil.

“If we’re not going to build pipelines, but we’re going to continue to use oil, it means that people are going to be looking at some of these alternative transport options,” he said.

“And if we don’t want oil on those alternative transport options, we need to give the pipelines another thought.

Time to consider all options, I dare say.

Follow Author

Alberta

The Government of Alberta’s Report on Their COVID-19 Pandemic Response: Bryam Bridle

Published on

From COVID Chronicles

By Dr. Byram W. Bridle 
Dr. Bridle is an Associate Professor of Viral Immunology in the Department of Pathobiology at the University of Guelph.

It confirms big problems with public health and provides a roadmap for how to do it right the next time around; let justice and healing begin.

The Government of Alberta has released a report following an investigation into the province’s response to the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The announcement can be found in this X post from, Eric Bouchard, a member of Alberta’s legislative assembly.

The report itself can be found here.

This is a report that is well-worth reading from beginning to end. The government identified numerous major problems with the handling of the pandemic response by Alberta Health Services. It is important to note that the current government in Alberta is not responsible for how the province responded to COVID-19. That responsibility falls upon the shoulders of the previous government. Thankfully, the current government is interested in knowing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They also believe in being transparent with the public that they serve.

One of my biggest concerns from the report is identified in the opening letter where it states, “Our quest for answers was impeded by barriers, including reluctance from key stakeholders to engage with the Task Force’s mandate“. Shame on those involved with developing and implementing COVID-19 policies that failed to cooperate with officials from a sitting government that launched this investigation for the wellbeing of the public. The lack of transparency from whomever these key stakeholders are is unacceptable.

What I appreciate most about the report is that it is constructively critical, providing a path forward, that includes refocusing the mandate of public health services back onto the public as the primary clientele, as opposed to acting in the service of pharmaceutical companies. It serves as a blueprint to guide future responses. The path forward is based largely on traditional best practices that were established by truly following the science and forged in the successful management of historical outbreaks. It is highly reminiscent of the national pandemic response plans that existed in 2020; the ones that were supposed to be implemented for COVID-19 but that were thrown out within days of the pandemic being declared.

I can’t help but wonder how many lives could have been saved, how many hospitalizations could have been prevented, and how much healthier our population and current economies would be if this far more appropriate, science-based plan would have been implemented back in 2020.

This report from the Government of Alberta provides a precedent for the world as overwhelming numbers of people wake up and realize the need for massive reforms within public health.

Further, the report validates many of the concerns that a lot of people had about the response to COVID-19. The totality of evidence highlights how egregious it was to have vilified critical thinkers who simply wanted to engage in robust discussions out of genuine concerns for others and not fall victim to propaganda. Firing people who didn’t want to be coerced into having experimental medical interventions and debatable policies thrust upon them, de-licensing and disciplining independent-thinking health care professionals, and censoring experts under the nefarious disguise of ‘combating misinformation’ and ‘fact checking’; THEY WERE ALL EGREGIOUS WRONGS.

There should be fallout from a damning report like this. The gross mismanagement of COVID-19 has created a huge hot mess. The path forward starts with acknowledging this. Then we need to plot a course to navigate through this mess and thoroughly clean it up. These are essential if there is ever to be healing for all those that were victimized by power brokers that blindly followed propaganda and bought into the hatred and divisive tactics that were passionately modelled by the prime minister on down.

Building on this report, I am honoured to have been invited to speak at an upcoming event in Alberta. It is An Injection of Truth: Healing Humanity.

My talk will dovetail with this report from the Government of Alberta. The event is going to focus on the four pillars of healing. My presentation will start with ripping off the scab and exposing lies from public health agencies that contributed to a myriad of problems within the pandemic response. It will transition into providing some practical recommendations with respect to where we go from here.

Please consider posting your thoughts about this report in the comments section. Do you agree with aspects? Disagree with others? Were criticisms too light or too harsh? Were key issues missed? What do you think about the ideas for moving forward? This is opportunity to provide feedback. You have a sitting government that is showing a willingness to listen to all parties and perspectives. I will share feedback with the Members of the Legislative Assembly that I will be meeting in Alberta on March 3rd.


COVID Chronicles is a reader-supported publication.

To receive posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

Alberta

The Davidson Report critiquing the Government of Alberta’s COVID-19 pandemic response finally released: Dr David Speicher

Published on

Courageous Truth

Scientific facts, personal views and life’s journey

By Dr David Speicher

The Dr. Gary Davidson report has finally been released by the Government of Alberta and confirms big problems with public health and provides a roadmap for managing future pandemics.

Nearly six months after Dr. Gary Davidson’s report was submitted to Premier Danielle Smith, it was publicly released quietly by the Government of Alberta on their website.

The only public statement about the report was on Eric Bouchard’s X account: “Dr. Gary Davidson’s report brings Alberta one step closer to the truth. https://open.alberta.ca/publications/albertas-covid-19-pandemic-response”. Eric followed up by saying “Alberta now has a tremendous opportunity to right many of the wrongs that took place over the last few years. We must work together to heal humanity and to earn back the trust of all Albertans.” and “I am committed to working with Albertans to ensure that the historical pain caused by the response to COVID-19 does not repeat. Thank you, Dr. Davidson, for your incredible work to get this report out. I look forward to hearing Dr. Davidson live on March 3, 2025.”

Purpose:

On November 14, 2022, the Premier of Alberta established a Task Force under the Health Quality Council of Alberta to examine the quality, use, interpretation, and flow of information and data that informed Alberta’s pandemic response to COVID-19 and provide recommendations on how to better manage a future pandemic.

This report critiques the Government of Alberta’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic between 2020 and 2022. The report addresses 9 areas: governance and flow of information, regulatory bodies (e.g. the role of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta), modelling, non-pharmaceutical interventions, masking, testing, infection-acquired immunity, vaccines, and therapeutics. The task force attempted to remain neutral and examine information on both sides of the narrative. However, there was a “fundamental lack of transparency and willingness to reveal information and discuss decisions and actions taken by AHS during the pandemic.” and the task force found that there was “a lack of willingness on the part of AHS officials to cooperate with the Task Force in our requests for data and information.” [Pg 40-41]

Chapter 6: Testing

As a molecular virologist with expertise in the detection and surveillance of infectious diseases, the task force asked me to provide information and guidance on PCR, rapid antigen testing (RAT), and serological testing for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 during the pandemic. The report provides excellent background and the methods used to test people for SARS-CoV-2.

Unfortunately, I continue to see misinformation spread about the reliability of the PCR test, including the number of cycles and “97% false-positives”. Therefore, I will be providing a deep dive into the PCR test over the coming weeks, including presenting insight on one legal case where I served as an expert witness that asked whether or not a PCR test for COVID is a “genetic test” according to the Ontario labour code. I would be happy to answer any questions that people may have.

From The Davidson Report, I would like to highlight two key issues. The first is the classification of a COVID case being determined by a PCR-positive test result driving a “casedemic” rather than a “pandemic” and the second is regarding the millions of dollars wasted on unused PCR reagents and RATs.

It is important to note the following recommendations made regarding testing (P174):

  1. RT-PCR represents an excellent high-sensitivity test to aid in accurate diagnoses of symptomatic people – if they are used for the intended purpose and at optimal Ct values (vs. Ct values at “high positive” cut-offs).
  2. Rapid tests with reasonable accuracy should not be used for screening the general population but could be used as an additional diagnostic tool, where clinically indicated.
  3. We recommend that future pandemic responses prioritize minimizing severe disease and mortality over extensive case detection. Specifically, Alberta should focus on developing a screening tool to help estimate individual risk. This approach will optimize resource use by directing testing capacity, which can be appropriately directed by evidence-based practices, such as testing symptomatic individuals, those whose management may be influenced by test results, and for specific surveillance scenarios.
  4. We recommend that levels of immunity be gauged using a multi-antibody serological and/or mucosal assay that accounts for both pre-existing immunity as well as the presence of immune cells with the potential for cross-protection.
  5. All tests should also be professionally administered and sufficiently sensitive to detect low antibody levels while sufficiently specific to distinguish between target and non-target antibodies. This also applies to laboratory tests used to identify specific respiratory viruses. Individual risk estimates can then be used to inform individual needs for protection either through the use of personal protective measures and/or vaccination.
  6. Without being linked to a set of standardized clinical criteria, we recommend against the use of PCR tests as the sole criteria for a case definition. A confirmed case should include a pre-determined profile of signs and/or symptoms AND a positive test for the infection of concern PLUS any relevant patient history and confirmed epidemiological information.
  7. Ensure that local surveillance data are used and interpreted when determining strategy and policy.

Final Thoughts

Regarding the report, I think that it is a very well-written critique of the Government of Alberta’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is not a final conclusive report. This is a good start to opening the door for some important deep governmental discussions that need to happen, including diving deeper into the harms caused by the COVID-19 modRNA vaccines, like the DNA contamination and the presence of the SV40 promoter-enhancer nuclear localization sequences, the vast number of vaccine-injured people, and the increased risk of turbo cancer. While I am disappointed that the Government of Alberta, namely Premier Smith, tried to bury this report by sitting on it for six months and quietly releasing the report without a proper press conference on the week of the USA inauguration I am relieved to see that the report was finally made public. The government’s attempt to bury the report shows that this is indeed a damning report and the government’s response could have been much better. However, I hope that this report will bring about government transparency and begin that well-needed conversation so that our society can indeed heal.

Healing Humanity is the theme of the next An Injection of Truth happening on March 3, 2025 in Calgary, Alberta. During the event I will be sharing on the numerous ways the COVID-19 vaccines can potentially cause harm and what can be done to heal from those harms. I will share the stage with several other prominent scientists.

  • Dr. Byram Bridle who has also shared his insights on The Davidson Report and will be “exposing lies from public health agencies that contributed to a myriad of problems within the pandemic response.”
  • Dr. Gary Davidson will be presenting on the contents the report by the Alberta COVID-19 Pandemic Data Review Task Force.
  • Dr. Denis Rancourt will provide a deep dive into the all-cause mortality.
  • Dr. David Martin will definitely be a presenter that no one will want to miss.

In closing, I encourage everyone to read through The Davidson Report and post your thoughts on the report in the comments section. What did you like or disagree with? What would you like to see different next time? I would be happy to take your comments to Calgary in March 2025. I also hope that this will be one of many governmental task forces that take a deep dive into the governmental response to the pandemic. We desperately need one for each province and at the federal level.

Courageous Truth is a reader-supported publication.

To receive posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Share

Continue Reading

Trending

X