My Lukewarmer post, or how to lose friends on both sides in the AGW debate:

So in my first couple posts I have talked about pipelines and fossil fuels, but people seem unwilling to accept my views on pipelines until I answer the big question: where do I sit on the topic of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). 

Way back in 1859 John Tyndall demonstrated that selected gases including, water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane can intercept/absorb Infra-red (IR) radiation. A few years later Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius did the first experiments/calculations to estimate how changes in the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should affect global temperatures. Since then the field of chemistry has refined the number and it is now generally accepted that that the direct climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide (excluding all positive or negative feedbacks) is roughly 1.2°C of warming per doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations. What that means is in the absence of feedbacks (positive or negative) every doubling of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere should result in an increase in the global mean temperature of approximately 1.2 ^oC. 

So what does this mean? Well overwhelming consensus in the field is that a majority of the observed warming from 1951 to 2010 (numbers from the IPCC 2013 Physical Sciences Report) can be attributed to anthropogenic increases in the concentrations of Tyndall gases in the atmosphere (I, and many others, find that term “greenhouse gases” imprecise. A recent suggestion has been to refer to these gases as “Tyndall Gases” which I find both appropriate and clean as the name carries no additional baggage). There are some contrarians who challenge this basic consensus, but it would be difficult to be considered a serious thinker in the field if you did not accept the basic chemistry of AGW. 

Now given the chemical reality of AGW; the next research issue to be addressed deals with the equilibrium climate sensitivity of the atmosphere/biosphere to increases in Tyndall gases. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has this to say:

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence). The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing.

– The IPCC includes an important footnote: No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

So the IPCC says they do not have a best estimate for climate sensitivity and the manner in which models handle sensitivity and feedbacks remains a topic of furious debate and a tremendous amount of research. Every month a new paper is published that changes the best science on the topic.

On the extreme end of the warming side are those who believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW). These individuals believe that climate sensitivity is at the highest end of the spectrum and a tipping point will be reached at some, still-to-be-defined, concentration of Tyndall gases in the atmosphere causing a positive feedback loop that will result in cataclysmic heating. The result will be a substantial change occurring over a very limited time frame (in tens of years rather than hundreds or thousands of years). That is how they translate the naturally expected 1.2°C of warming per doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations into increases ranging from 4.5 °C to over 6 °C per doubling. Proponents of CAGW insist that the tipping point is nigh and that we must decarbonize ASAP or risk probable extinction as a species.  

I look at the issue differently, my graduate-level courses in global biogeochemical cycles identified that most geochemical cycles involve negative feedback loops that buffer changes. People like me are called “lukewarmers”. We do not assume that positive feedback loops dominate the system but rather a balance of positive and negative cycles are at play with the resultant effect being a relatively minor positive effect. Unsurprisingly, an examination of the historical record demonstrates that changes in global temperature have historically mirrored the direct IR absorbtion characteristics of the increases in the various Tyndall gas concentrations. 

So when you read someone talk about the “consensus” understand what that word really means. There is an overwhelming consensus that humans are having an effect on the global climate, but the IPCC (the organization who define the consensus) says: 

No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

 

The issue is that in the scientific community the issue isn't settled. The absence of consensus on sensitivity doesn’t stop political and social activists who insist they know better than the climate scientists. As a numerate and scientifically literate individual, I am skeptical, not of the science, but of the purveyors of these political messages. I strongly believe we are affecting our climate and strongly believe we need to decarbonize our economy but that is definitely a topic for a different post.

On being labelled “pro-oil” and ”pro-pipeline”

The morning I found myself in the very interesting position of being the foil in a thoughtful and well-written piece in the Tyee (http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/12/02/Gorilla-on-Burnaby-Mountain/). The piece recounts a Twitter discussion between myself and the author regarding the Burnaby Mountain protest. While I found the article a very interesting and compelling read I was bemused to discover myself labeled as both “pro-oil” and “pro-pipeline”. The article migrated, naturally, to the issue of climate change and in doing so it passed over the big blind spot of the pipeline protest movement.

We live in a society that is, like it or not, dependent on oil and the products of oil. Our food is produced on farms that need heavy equipment to operate. That food is shipped around the world by airplane, boat and rail all of which rely on petroleum hydrocarbons to operate. Once it arrives in town it is shipped to warehouses and local stores using vehicles running on petroleum fuels. The article talks lovingly about alternative energy technologies but ignores the reality that only oil products (or biofuel alternatives) have the energy density to do this job. No alternative fuel with a sufficient energy density exists to be used in the quantities necessary to replace petroleum hydrocarbons at this time. I will address biofuels in a future post but suffice it to say using food to operate our machinery is a losing proposition in a world of 7 billion hungry souls.

The protestors on Burnaby Mountain bristled when they were called "hypocrites" for complaining about the lack of parking for the protest or that they were using propane heaters or snapping photos on their iPhones. I hesitate to use that word because in my mind in order to be a “hypocrite” you have to know enough about a topic to actually recognize your cognitive dissonance and in the case of many/most of the protestors their lives are so divorced from the science/chemistry that underlies their daily lives that they don't meet that bar. We live in a society with a small population of the scientific literate and a bulk of the population that while not scientifically illiterate are blind to the science around them and unfortunately, it would seem that the protestors are made up primarily of the latter.

What a lot of these protestors seem to not understand is that petroleum hydrocarbons aren’t just the fuels that run our vehicles or the natural gas to run power plants. Virtually every plastic, “rubber” and other synthetic material is made of petroleum hydrocarbons. Gortex, nylon, spandex, polyester are all petroleum-based. While you see a bag of whole blood in an emergency room, I see blood wrapped in petroleum products that was filtered through petroleum-based filters, is injected into patients using petroleum-based materials and monitored by machines composed of petroleum-based materials. Many of the precursors of pharmaceutical drugs are petroleum-based and the instruments used in their production are petroleum-based. Those iPhones used to record the protest consist of BC aluminum, surrounding petroleum-based circuit boards coated in precious metals mined in BC and run on batteries made of rare earth metals (mined in China as our rare earth mines can't get opened).

The question I would like to ask our friends at the Tyee is what modern convenience would they like to give up in order to allow for the elimination of the transportation of oil? The computers they use to write their articles? The insulated wires used to transfer the information to the internet? The servers that distribute the information?

So in the end am I pro-oil? Well since I like eating apples shipped by truck from the Okanagan, while clothing my children in warm, light clothing then I suppose I am pro-oil. Given that one of my children only made it to hospital thanks to the presence of the BC Ambulance Service driving around the city in diesel-powered vehicles I suppose I am pro-oil. As for being pro-pipeline, well as I have written elsewhere, pipelines are the safest and most energetically efficient method to transport oil. So I suppose as an environmental professional that makes me pro-pipeline as well.

Follow-up on Trans-Mountain

As a follow-up to my previous post I would like to address some comments about the Trans-Mountain pipeline, oil tankers and oil exports from BC. Most of the following numbers are from Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and Washington State documents. If you want references send a request my way.

Let’s start with some numbers. The current Trans-Mountain has a capacity of about 300,000 barrels a day (b/d). Of the total capacity, 221,000 b/d goes to refineries in British Columbia and Washington State and 79,000 b/d is allocated for marine exports. The Chevron refinery in Burnaby gets about 55,000 b/d and the Puget Sound spur line of the Trans-Mountain has a capacity of 170,000 b/d. The Trans-Mountain expansion has two proposed lines: Line 1 would consist of existing pipeline segments and could transport 350,000 b/d of refined petroleum products, light crude or heavy crude oil. The proposed Line 2 would have a capacity of 540,000 b/d and is allocated to the transportation of heavy crude oil. This new pipeline and configuration set-up would, add 590,000 b/d to the existing system for a total capacity of 890,000 b/d. This includes an upgrade of the Puget Sound line to 225,000 b/d.

One fact not well understood in this debate is that there are 5 major refineries in the Puget Sound with a combined capacity of 643,000 b/d. So why is that important? Well a lot of my Victoria friends have said “we don’t want tankers off our coast”. My response to that is you are really late getting into this game since for the last 20 years up to 600,000 b/d of Alaskan crude has been cruising past your proud city. These tankers have traveled down the entire coast of BC and along the west of Vancouver Island before turning west into the Strait of Juan de Fuca and into the Puget Sound with nary a major problem.

A big complaint is that much of the increased pipeline capacity is for “export” but “export” can mean a lot of things. Thanks to the loss of refining capacity in the Vancouver region we actually “export” crude oil and almost immediately need to re-import it as aviation and jet fuel from the Cherry Point refinery in Washington. Another not well known fact is that the Alaskan oil fields are drying up and new sources are needed to keep the Pacific Northwest in fuel. As I write this, new railway capacity is being built to supply up to 725,000 b/d of Bakken crude to the west coast and the Puget Sound refineries. The route will travel over any number of rivers including the headwaters of the Kootenay River and alongside the Columbia Rivers to the Puget Sound. The route risks both our Canadian and American ecological heritage. Every barrel of oil that can reach the Puget Sound via pipeline or in a double-hulled tanker is a barrel not sent overland adjacent to some of the most pristine and biologically diverse freshwater aquatic ecosystems in the world. Put another way, each Aframax tanker (700,000 bbl at 80% full) leaving the Port of Vancouver for the short haul to the Puget Sound could replace over 11 unit trains traveling almost halfway across the continent.

So I’ve thrown a lot of numbers around but what does this mean? The upgrade of the Puget Sound line of the Trans-Mountain could potentially result in a reduction of the amount of crude oil moving down the Strait of Juan de Fuca to the Puget Sound and will certainly reduce the amount of oil transported to the Puget Sound by rail from the Bakken oil fields. With the decrease in Alaskan crude an increase of the Trans-Mountain may not significantly change the volume of oil that currently runs down the Strait of Juan de Fuca every day and given transportation costs, it is likely that the major “export” location for Trans-Mountain oil could actually be to the Puget Sound.

As I’ve written before, we need to move towards a society where oil products are not used for power or fuel. But until that time comes we need these products and the safest, most environmentally responsible way to get them to us is via pipelines. The least environmentally responsible ways are via rail and/or truck. While we transition away from fossil fuels lets ensure that we use the safest modes of transport in order to protect our joint ecological heritage.

Addendum: A comment from Dr. Andrew Leach at U of A reminds me of a pertinent fact. Not all the refineries in the Puget Sound have coking capacity. This would limit the amount of bitumen that could be shipped there as a refinery without a coker would be limited to processing crude and not dilbit. While the documentation for Line 2 indicates that it would transport heavy crude, it is assumed that much of that capacity will be in dilbit form.

Thoughts on Trans-Mountain

There is a tremendous misconception in the media and on the streets of Vancouver about the role of pipelines and hydrocarbons in our daily lives. We live in a society that is absolutely dependent on petroleum hydrocarbons derived from oil. Petroleum hydrocarbons aren’t just refined into fuel to run our vehicles, they also serve as the feedstock of the petrochemical industry. Petrochemicals form the basis of all the things that make our modern world work. They are the building blocks of our plastics, our computers, the tools we need to keep us healthy and the drugs we take when we are sick.

The proud defender of the land, Dr. Lynn Quarmby, has built her entire career using petrochemicals to advance her science. Get rid of the petrochemicals in her lab and she would be out of business. Just for interest, how do you think Whole Foods gets their organic kale to market? It is done using big diesel-powered trucks that need fuel.

Edmonton refineries provide up to 60% of the refined petroleum products used in the Lower Mainland, with the remainder supplied by the Chevron refinery in Burnaby and the Cherry Point refinery in Washington. The refined fuel is transported via the Trans-Mountain pipeline and both mentioned refineries are supplied with much/most of their raw products via the Trans-Mountain pipeline. When Gregor Robertson and Derek Corrigan decry the prospect of tankers in Vancouver Harbour, what they don’t tell you is that if the Trans-Mountain pipeline was shut down tomorrow, the result would be hundreds of tankers a year coming into Vancouver to supply our domestic market.

The Trans-Mountain pipeline is over 50 years old and while it is currently safe it is time to consider if a route through Burnaby Mountain might be safer than the current route which runs through Burnaby neighbourhoods. Wouldn’t Kinder Morgan be derelict to not investigate that option? Like it or not, our West Coast society is dependent on oil products to keeps sick babies alive at Sick Kids Hospital and keep Gregor Robertson and Derek Corrigan’s cities running smoothly. These products get to us via the Trans-Mountain pipeline and the protestors better watch out because if they shut the pipeline down, what they will see is hundred of oil tankers in their ports and thousands of rail cars of oil running along their most ecologically vulnerable rivers. Certainly we should move towards a society where oil products are not used for power or fuel. But until that time comes we need these products and the safest, most environmentally responsible way to get them to us is via pipelines.

About Me

If you have reached this website you were probably directed here because you were interested in what I have to say about pipelines. While many of these posts will be on that topic, my background is not specifically in pipeline technology and so most posts will not dwell on the topic. Like any new blog I will have to earn your trust and one of the ways of doing that it to tell you a bit about myself.

As my blog names suggests, I am a resident of the Township of Langley, living in the community of Walnut Grove. I have a very selfish reason for being interested in the Trans-Mountain pipeline in that my home is less than 50 m from the current Trans-Mountain right-of-way/pipeline. When I moved into my current neighbourhood, I was fully aware of the proximity of the Trans-Mountain pipeline and was comfortable with its presence. This is of particular note because in my professional life I am a Registered Professional Chemist and a Registered Professional Biologist and have been appointed to the Roster of Approved Professionals by the BC Ministry of Environment’s Director of Waste Management as a Standards Assessment Specialist (Contaminated Sites Approved Professional).

My area of expertise is the investigation and remediation of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination and the assessment of hydrocarbon contamination on human and ecological health. In my work, I have developed expertise in addressing the requirements of the British Columbia Environmental Management Act and its associated Contaminated Sites and Hazardous Waste Regulations for industrial and municipal clients. In my 15 years of practice I have coordinated multi‑stage environmental investigations; developed and implemented remediation plans; coordinated human health and ecological risk assessments and sediment quality/toxicity evaluations; and prepared reports for submission to the Ministry of Environment (remediation completion reports; human health and ecological risk assessments; remedial action plans; preliminary and detailed site investigations; and permit compliance reporting). In addition to provincial regulations, I have developed remediation plans to address the requirements of federal and local legislation and regulations from the Fisheries Act to local and municipal bylaws and have prepared reports for federal, provincial and municipal regulators. 

In my professional capacity I serve as a technical specialist in areas including: industrial chemistry; sources, fate and transport, and bidegradation of chemical contaminants; effects of contaminants on natural systems; and ecosystem restoration. My graduate research was in the fields of Chemistry and Environmental Science and involved improving the availability of high-quality multidisciplinary scientific data for use in environmental decision-making. This included developing standardised protocols to evaluate multidisciplinary data including specialised protocols for organic trace data, toxicological experiments and biological responses to organic contaminants. Coincidentally, one of my original research cases used to develop our methodology was an examination of the field of climate change. As such I have been reading the literature on climate change since the early 1990s and I have some pretty strong opinions on that topic as well.

I’m sorry if the above sounds a bit like bragging, but what I am trying to establish is that in the field of hydrocarbon spills and clean-up I am not a novice. My aim is to inform readers and supply useful information to assist in conducting a reasonable discussion on the transportation and use of petroleum hydrocarbons. I acknowledge that I will not always be the expert (or even right) but will endeavour to make corrections when my errors are pointed out and provide links to those who know more than I do on a topic.