# Kitimat Clean Ltd.



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

"Kitimat Clean Ltd. is a private British Columbia company set up to plan, construct and operate an oil refinery in Kitimat, BC. The refinery will feature state-of-the-art design, specifically for processing Alberta oil sands heavy crude oil, and engineered to be the cleanest upgrading and refining site in the world."
http://kitimatclean.ca/

Short interview with Kitimat Clean president David Black.
http://www.newstalk770.com/audio-on-demand-2/
-audio vault
Dec 22/15 - 8:00 AM
-starts at 8h:46m:50s

*Snip from Calgary Herald:*
Canadian National Railway Co. has rail lines connecting Fort McMurray, Alta. and Kitimat.

“I’ve been talking to CN (Rail) and terminal operators in Alberta about how we ship 100 per cent bitumen,” Black said.

Oilsands bitumen needs to be cut with diluent, which turns the mixture into slurry, in order to travel through a pipeline. Black said that by using railway cars he could eliminate the need for costly diluent, potentially allowing producers to ship more bitumen to his proposed refinery without a pipeline.

“I think it might be a better way than the pipeline,” Black said, referring to potential spills and safety issues.
http://calgaryherald.com/business/e...-a-plan-for-a-west-coast-exit-for-canadas-oil


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

*Source:* http://www.cfax1070.com/


free photo hosting


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

there are 2 other equally important refinery proposals for west coast shipment of alberta heavy oil to asia.

all 3 projects deserve equal attention. They all involve innovative engineering, first nation participation & serious financing.

because i don't wish these other 2 projects to be concealed under a single-focused "Kitimat Clean" thread title, i think i'll open another thread ...


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

*TimesColonist.com April 20, 2016*

http://www.timescolonist.com/business/feds-b-c-to-assess-kitimat-clean-refinery-proposal-1.2235132

*- a few snips : all quotes*


David Black’s proposed $22-billion oil refinery for B.C.’s northwest coast is now subject to the environmental assessment process after Kitimat Clean submitted its environmental project description to the federal and provincial governments at the end of March.
-
“There’s no waste water from this kind of refinery. The only thing that could be an environmental issue are smokestacks, and the engineers tell me whatever the requirements are they can match.”
-
The refinery is expected to have a lifespan of 50 years and is scheduled to be decommissioned in 2074. Located 13 kilometres north of Kitimat, it will be built to process up to 400,000 barrels of bitumen into fuel products, including gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. It will also produce byproducts such as butane, propane and sulfur pellets.
-
He said he has been told the rest of the money can be found in North America, but he is also speaking with potential investors in the Middle East and China.
-
“It’s not as hard to finance as you might think,” Black said.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

What's not to like about this?

Seems to me that shipping the refined products is a heck of a lot smarter than shipping the crude sludge, which if and when the inevitable happens (in those treacherous, hard to navigate, ecologically sensitive waters teaming with life & an irreplacable source of seafood), the heavy unprocessed stuff would sink and be impossible to clean up.

Not so much with a spill of the refined stuff, much of which would either float or evaporate eventually, right?

I'm also not crazy about the thought of pipelines going through pristine remote hard-or-impossible-to-access rugged mountainous terrain when, even with all the supposed infallible leak-detection tech, because it doesn't seem to work, the clean-up would be a nightmare due to inaccessibility, if and when the inevitable leak happens.

Also, would be good for CNR, of which I happen to hold a few shares


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

why keep on touting this one single project, though. 

there are 3 competing west coast refinery projects. In addition to Kitimat Clean, there's Pacific Future Energy & Eagle Spirit Energy. Pacific Future also plans to ship neatbit by rail to kitimat. In fact, i believe SNC Lavalin for Pacific Future is said to have developed the neatbit rail technology?

not one of these projects is even off the drawing boards yet. It's way too soon to start promoting one over the other two. I'm left wondering what is going on, do we have a lobbyist in the forum? some body or some people with agendas to promote the david black project?


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

heh  hp it's the first time I've noticed this thread or even heard about the proposed project, or if I did it flew beneath my radar.

no conspiracy here, just zylon giving us a heads up


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

so sorry, but how does a publicity piece for david black's project count in any way as a heads-up?

the situation has been written about extensively in this forum. Kitimat clean is *not* the only proposal. There is a major thread re all 3 west coast refinery proposals under this link. This thread includes a detailed & fascinating - as always - response from altaRed as to why he believes all 3 of the new BC refinery proposals are fraught.

http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showt...ast-shipment?p=1093410&viewfull=1#post1093410

thread also considers Energy East & the possibility of Keystone acceptance if Clinton is elected.

given this torrent of information, parties who are still unilaterally promoting the david black proposal at this point in time do sound like lobbyists!


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

*re post #6*

What is the difference between mentioning news on this one company in a separate thread, and posting company particulars under a stock ticker in "Individual Stocks/Equities"? The reason I didn't post there is because this isn't a publicly traded company.

I know nothing about the other two companies, but I do like the concept of Kitimat Clean, so I post new developments as they unfold for the interest of forum members.

FYI: when the other thread was started, I asked Moderator to combine the two threads, as they cover the same topic. But I was ignored; so I'm okay with this being a stand alone thread.


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

If this thread bothers anyone so much, feel free to use the "report post" button, and let Moderator/Admin decide.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

IMHO this topic - of staggering importance for alberta, for BC, for canada, for the whole of north america - is far too important to let vested interests control & promote one tiny thread in the overall extraordinarily rich story.

of the 3 new drawing-board refinery projects, financing for Pacific Future Energy appears to be more assured than the other 2. It's opaque, though. Their $$ appear to be offshore funds.

kitimat clean & eagle spirit have no big committed financial backers yet. Their banner at present seems to be Build a Plan & the Money will Come. I wonder.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> so sorry, but how does a publicity piece for david black's project count in any way as a heads-up?





mrPPincer said:


> *it's the first time I've* noticed this thread or even *heard about the proposed project, or if I did it flew beneath my radar*.


I suppose since it's old news to you h_p, I should then revise it to say zylon is giving *some* of us a heads up, as I've had little knowledge or interest in the transporting of heavy oil through the fragile west coast but I actually found this proposed project quite intriguing.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

mrPPincer said:


> I suppose since it's old news to you



it's not a question of old news. It's a question of misleading readers by suppressing 66% of a story.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

You are ofc free to comment on the other two here as you know, I'm quite interested in what you have to say.. go ahead


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

mister pincer i gave you the link already. The other thread is loaded with more info than you'd ever want. Including an expert evaluation of success (dim) for the 3 embryo refinery proposals by none other than cmf's oilfields eminence grise. 

IMHO the Alberta oil sands issue is far too important to manipulate it into one narrow little corner, especially when the manipulation is being done by parties who downright seem to want to extol their lack of news. Perhaps instead of sarcasm, you could have a little read & get yourself up to date?


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

h_p I've read bits and pieces of the thread you linked above, & will probably read it from end to end, but if you sense sarcasm in my posts above, you've misread me.

You spoke of suppressing a part of the story, I was merely politely asking for your rest of the story in the context of the info within this thread instead of trying to censor zylon.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

i have been extraordinarily polite through these past weeks of hyper-focus on only the david parker project.

i am certainly not trying to censor zylon in the least, it's grotesque to use such a word. I simply question why parties would deliberately ignore significant information about a national crisis when the information has been placed before their eyes time & time & time again.

anyone coming along at this point in time & pretending that only *one* project exists appears to be possibly a lobbyist or possibly someone with an agenda ... or perhaps someone who just doesn't pay attention to the news.

as it happens, i do find it sarcastic, after the extraordinary wealth of information that has been served up to you here, in threads that have taken weeks for several parties to painstakingly create & post, for you to sneer that every word must now be reproduced all over again, just for your lordship's personal benefit ...


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

^well, I think we all three (you, zylon, and I) who have thus far posted here can all agree, this thread now has sarcasm :hopelessness:


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

> anyone coming along at this point in time & pretending that only *one* project exists appears to be possibly a lobbyist or possibly someone with an agenda ... or perhaps someone who just doesn't pay attention to the news.


h_p nobody is suggesting that but you.

& perhaps you've not read my post above about the fragility of the valuable living resources on the west coast & how this project seems to be a very possible sidestep to that very serious problem.

Because you've not even touched on it, only thrown a fit & filled the thread with negativity.

If you have something constructive to add here, possibly how the other two are competitive in the respect of the environment as this one seems to be, again, please go ahead.
___

I've worked in remote areas all over the coast, including helicopter fly-in only areas, so I do have a somewhat unique appreciation and respect, and this is the only one so far that has peaked my interest.

As I've said I'll read your thread (which was created four-plus months after this one was), so please, try to relax, maybe make yourself a cup of camomile tea or something.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

no one has "thrown a fit" or "filled the thread with negativity" except yourself.

since you say you've never read about or even heard about the other 2 projects - & since all 3 projects exist on drawing boards only - how could you possibly have any clue whether kitimat clean is more or less beneficial to the environment than the other 2 projects? 

no one can make these judgments. All three projects are still too embryonic. Now is only a time for canadians to observe & to gather informaton. 

it's your & zylon's irrational refusal to gather objective information about the mass of all 3 projects & your insistence that only the kitimat clean project is worthy of approval, that attracts skeptical attention.

specifically, in your case, since you know zero about Pacific Future or about Eagle Spirit, how could you be in a position to compare their environmental approaches?

btw "piqued my interest" is spelled "piqued," not "peaked." The root is the french verb picquer.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

> btw "piqued my interest" is spelled "piqued," not "peaked." The root is the french verb picquer.


thanks, kinda thought that, but when I started to type it into the google window as a spell-check, 'peaked my interest' came up.
I should have hit enter, because that would have brought up the actual spelling.
I won't argue I'm no ignoramus, but, working on that 

(btw I have your linked thread open in another window and reading {re-reading in actuality} right now).


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

.
just one of the problems with the 2 kitimat proposals (Pacific Future will also build a refinery at kitimat, will also process neatbit brought in by rail from alberta) is shipping out the refined crude down the long, narrow & treacherous Douglas Channel.

kitimat is inland, at the head of a 25-mile arm of the sea. Reportedly navigating the channel is so challenging that both companies will be required to hire special pilots to gide their ships down the Douglas.

the 3rd project, Eagle Spirit, will end at Prince Rupert, already the chosen site for an LNG gas terminal at Lelu Island. This project entails a big energy corridor between prince rupert & alberta, including a natural gas pipeline. Eagle Spirit has tentatively said it will refine alberta oil sands crude into lighter crude at a refinery to be built east of the rockies.

but there are already two objections, 1) some first nations along the route are objecting to Eagle Spirit; & 2) some oil authorities are reportedly saying that Asian oil buyers want unrefined dilbit because they already own the big refineries that are capable of processing dilbit. The authorities say that Asia does not want light crude from canada because Asia doesn't want the expense of retrofitting those big refineries to take the lighter crude.

meanwhile one of the first things the Liberals did after assuming power last october was impose a moratorium on shipping alberta heavy oil out of west coast ports.

look, this is just my opinion, but IMHO it's a real disservice to write glowingly about "one" treatment modality for alberta oil, while neglecting all the others in some sort of pretence that numerous other options do not exist. The problem - where & how to export alberta sands oil - is already ancient, fraught with trouble, has the potential to damage canada for decades to come. Every citizen IMHO has a vested interest in keeping abreast of this hydra-headed issue. We need to pull together to find a working solution.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

The thing is that heavy oil is what importers want...they can buy refined stuff anywhere. I think some of these proposals are selling swampland.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

yeah, re-read your precious thread h_p, it was the one I thought it was, all 25 posts all over the place from the 3 proposed refineries, to LNG proposals that didn't get off the ground, to Kinder Morgan, to SNC's corporate vision, to westbank first nation (stayed there for a couple days once btw but didn't see anything to do with oil sands), to whether or not Hilary will allow Keystone.

Nothing about the environment. at all..

Thanks for the misdirection in _lieu_ of substance (oh.. hey, look at that, I spelled it right).

edit: PS I typed this before your extensive response, re. post # 22, that's the kind of response I was hoping for from you, thankyou.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

do you mean the chinese importers? china is where the big modern refineries - that can best handle bitumen - are located. That's what US gas executive *val* told us years ago, at the beginning of the TRP thread.

what a conundrum. China wants bitumen, has the refineries that can handle bitumen, doesn't want to pay to retrofit refineries to process refined crude. But just in time, the liberals managed to put a moratorium on exporting bitumen from west coast ports.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

mrPPincer said:


> yeah, re-read your precious thread h_p, it was the one I though it was, all 25 posts all over the place from the 3 proposed refineries, to LNG proposals that didn't get off the ground, to Kinder Morgan, to SNC's corporate vision, to westbank first nation (stayed there for a couple days once btw but didn't see anything to do with oil sands), to whether or not Hilary will allow Keystone.
> 
> Nothing about the environment. at all..
> 
> Thanks for the misdirection in _lieu_ of substance (oh.. hey, look at that, I spelled it right).



thanks for the lovely sarcasm! but the issue is about more than the environment. Why don't you go start a thread about the environment, if you wish.

the issue is what it always was. How to sell Alberta sands oil.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

mrPPincer said:


> yeah, re-read your precious thread h_p, it was the one I thought it was, all 25 posts all over the place from the 3 proposed refineries, to LNG proposals that didn't get off the ground, to Kinder Morgan, to SNC's corporate vision, to westbank first nation (stayed there for a couple days once btw but didn't see anything to do with oil sands), to whether or not Hilary will allow Keystone.
> 
> Nothing about the environment. at all..
> 
> ...



LOL m'lord, do you really think you should be dictating what one may or may not post in the forum, so it will be exactly to your pleasure & liking?


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

Eder said:


> The thing is that heavy oil is what importers want...they can buy refined stuff anywhere. I think some of these proposals are selling swampland.


^this could very well be, but is it economically sensible to be selling the heavy stuff off our fragile & treacherous waters where a heavy oil spill would mean permanent damage to an extremely healthy fishing industry?

It's all about weighing options, as I see it, and shipping the heavy crude out from there is not one, so then it becomes all about selling the refined product, and if it isn't viable and something that will be purchased, then the project(s) should be put on ice or put on a long stream implementation plan, imho.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> LOL m'lord, do you really think you should be dictating what one may or may not post in the forum, so it will be exactly to your pleasure & liking?


LOL well done, I bow to your mastery of the art of sarcasm :biggrin:


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

mrPPincer said:


> It's all about weighing options, as I see it, and shipping the heavy crude out from there is not one, so then it becomes all about selling the refined product, and if it isn't viable and something that will be purchased, *then the project(s) should be put on ice* or put on a long stream implementation plan, imho.



putting alberta heavy oil on ice is not going to fly :biggrin:

why weren't you opposing the oil sands 20 years ago? everything was known then


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

20 years ago I'd been through Calgary & Edmonton numbers of times, & knew that Fort McMurray was a huge employer, but that was about all I knew.

For the record, I don't oppose the oil sands, my point is that if something isn't economically viable, ie selling refined product, then the next logical thought is to wait until it becomes viable before implimenting, or alternatively, build a long-term plan that can be adapted to new tech, changes in demand etc, and implimented on a dime when feasible.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

^^

try telling that to albertans who've lost their jobs & their houses.

don't you think, though, that it's a quarter century too late to audit marketing 101. 

_if a product isn't economically viable to sell right now, all one has to do is wait until it becomes viable. New tech. Changes in demand. Implemented on a dime._ 

implemented is spelled with an "e," not an "i." perhaps something is wrong with your spell checkr?


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

yeah could be the spelcheckr as you say, or it could be the home brew, either way, you didn't actually address my post did you? more mockery, great, let's take this up later, I have a highly-recommended book to read right now

(Station Eleven, a novel by Emily St. John Mandel)

this bickery is affecting my mood



> try telling that to albertans who've lost their jobs & their houses


I'll maybe do that as a favour to you, I happen to know some, who may or may not have.

Latahz, imma close CMF & try not to look again tonight lol
this thing has become a ********.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

If China wants lemons why try sell em lemon aide...ship them the lemons & we can all pay for the society Canadians demand. btw the fragile & treacherous waters are not very treacherous (I've sailed them) and Canadians don't seem too worried about our fisheries there as we allow Norwegians to farm non native salmon species regardless of the danger of native salmon genocide.
That pipeline is pure politics driven...not science no regard to science.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Eder said:


> If China wants lemons why try sell em lemon aide...ship them the lemons & we can all pay for the society Canadians demand. btw the fragile & treacherous waters are not very treacherous (I've sailed them) and Canadians don't seem too worried about our fisheries there as we allow Norwegians to farm non native salmon species regardless of the danger of native salmon genocide.
> That pipeline is pure politics driven...not science no regard to science.




Eder you are saying, then, that the liberals should reverse the recent ban on bitumen shipping out of west coast ports?

this would be hard to do. Politics, as you say. Still, the BC coastal moratorium on bitumen shipping does seem illogical, especially since the feds are planning to allow it out of the east coast port of St John, NB. If energy east should ever get built, that is.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> but the issue is about more than the environment. Why don't you go start a thread about the environment, if you wish.
> 
> the issue is what it always was. How to sell Alberta sands oil.





Eder said:


> If China wants lemons why try sell em lemon aide...*ship them the lemons* & we can all pay for the society Canadians demand. btw the fragile & treacherous waters are not very treacherous (I've sailed them) and *Canadians don't seem too worried about our fisheries there* as we allow Norwegians to farm non native salmon species regardless of the danger of native salmon genocide.
> That pipeline is pure politics driven...not science no regard to science.





humble_pie said:


> Eder you are saying, then, that the liberals should reverse the recent ban on bitumen shipping out of west coast ports?
> 
> this would be hard to do. Politics, as you say. Still, *the BC coastal moratorium on bitumen shipping does seem illogical*, especially since the feds are planning to allow it out of the east coast port of St John, NB. If energy east should ever get built, that is.


^^^So scorched earth then, take no prisoners, scr*w the d*mned foreigners and their silly little fish-farms, that'll take care of them, and any fool can steer a rusty tin can through the rocky passes in rough water, I get it.

The japanese want our last 3 old-growth trees; I suppose we should sell them asap too so that you can continue to have your unbroken stream of cheap throw-away imported allen-key furniture, right?

Thank god you two aren't the deciders, my guess is you'll have to wait at least 8 years until harper jr can maybe take a shot at it (good luck w that btw :cupcake.

(We'll probably have a cleaner solution than shipping the heavy unrefined crude up and running by then anyways  ).

btw this thread is very much about the environment; at least take a look at the title if you haven't bothered to read zylon's qotes or followed the links.




humble_pie said:


> putting alberta heavy oil on ice is not going to fly :biggrin:


I didn't say anything about putting alberta heavy oil on ice as you know if you've actually read what I said.

You and eder were saying the east don't want to buy our refined product; my response was *if* we can't sell at a profit, then the next logical thought would be that the *project* should be put on ice until it can be profitable; this one, Kitimat Clean, the one the thread is about, remember?

That's for mr market to decide not some armchair experts like us (or politicians either I suppose).


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

.
it is astonishing how David Black, a 70-year-old BC newspaper tycoon who has never before been known for any engineering feat more complicated than putting his car in reverse gear, has emerged to bill his Kitimat Clean project as the cleanest oil refinery the world has ever seen.

never mind that David Black has no financial backers that he can name. Never mind that he has no backing from serious engineers either. Never mind that he cannot name the first nations which he claims are supporting his Kitimat Clean refinery project. Never mind that he purloined the neatbit bitumen technology from SNC railcar prototypes.

never mind that David Black was first an ardent supporter of the enbridge proposal for a Northern Gateway bitumen terminal at Kitimat. Never mind that, as soon as Northern Gateway was scuttled, Black opportunistically seized the enbridge concept, converted it to neatbit technology, called it Kitimat Clean & blitzed his way forward on a flimsy media publicity campaign that insists he'll be able to build the cleanest oil refinery the world has ever seen. 

never mind that David Black is asking the federal government of canada for a $10 billion guarantee.

the astonishing thing is that anybody would believe this. Theworld'scleanestoilrefineryever. The beyond astonishing thing is that the premier of BC, the mayor of Kitimat & the elected town council of Kitimat have all fallen for Theworld'scleanestoilrefineryever.

as can be seen in this thread, at least 2 cmffers are now also believing in Theworld'scleanestoilrefineryever.

are you ready to believe in Theworld'scleanestoilrefineryever? here is david black himself, talking it up.

.


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

*http://www.terracestandard.com/*

*Refinery backer upset project is being sent to review panel*

by Rod Link - Terrace Standard
BC posted Sep 11, 2016 at 7:00 AM

http://www.terracestandard.com/news/393000231.html


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

*If Liberals don't win in BC, this project is likely dead.*

http://www.terracestandard.com/opinion/411431795.html



> *Editorial: Is an oil refinery really a good idea?*
> Terrace, B.C. posted Jan 21, 2017
> 
> That's a big pair of dice Skeena BC Liberal candidate Ellis Ross is rolling in his support of an oil refinery in the riding.
> ...


----------

