EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Recently we bought a vehicle, a little Honda 4 cylinder, 4 stroke and I’ve noticed with my years of experience on vehicles that this little vehicle for a brand new machine, it takes a while for it to start, there is black soot coming out of the exhaust pipe.
Can Mr. Anderson, or the other person explain why?
Mr. Anderson: I may call on the assistance of my technical colleague but I’m not the technical expert.
I really can’t comment on specific incidents.
I too find from time to time I have a new F150, and I find from time to time the exhaust is different.
And with my snow machine from time to time depending on conditions and whether it is pre-mixed properly I get different results as well and I really can’t comment on specific applications or specific vehicles.
Ken if you want to comment further on anything on Honda elements and specifics.
All I can say is that that actually is quite helpful because you’ve given me the name and model of a vehicle which is generally a lot more information than I’ve been given so far.
It makes it much more helpful because I could actually even rent one of these and if I wanted whereas before all I would get is we have all these problems.
A late model was an earlier comment, a late model vehicle which unfortunately is not really much help because different vehicles respond differently to fuels.
There is an interaction between the vehicle and the fuel and it depends how the vehicle was calibrated and there’s a lot impact so, that’s why typically if you do have issues between a fuel and a vehicle it is quite often quite specific to a given kind of vehicle or a given supplier of vehicles or given automobile manufacturer.
He is so professional when it comes down to answering questions.
This little vehicle of ours and I have had vehicles before, F-150 and such like that.
When it is a new vehicle it starts up immediately but this little vehicle hesitates, even if it has been parked for two hours.
That goes back to the letter that the Honourable Minister wrote the rate of pressure released to the use of starting engine.
Mr. Anderson indicated that not all the specifications of his contract obligations and the letter from the minister indicate otherwise.
They are calling you a liar.
There is a couple of point that I could make is that when you test for vapour pressure specifically the way you sample the gasoline is very important.
There are actually sampling requirements that are required to properly take a sample to measure vapour pressure because vapour pressure is a somewhat elusive parameter.
If a sample is not taken properly then the results will be low.
That is the first point.
The second point is that all tests have precision.
What that means is that you can take the same samples put it in two and test it in the same machine on two different days and you will get two different numbers; they will be slightly different.
The difference between specification, which we talked about earlier, and the actual result for Coral Harbour is not significant.
Mr. Mitchell: No.
What then you are indicating is that the samples are not taken properly, then you are indicating that the very department that work with, the PPD, is incompetent.
Is that what he is saying, Mr. Chairman.
No, I didn’t.
What I said was that you have to take a lot of care in taking vapour pressure samples.
I have no idea of how that sample was taken so I can’t comment.
All I am doing is telling you when you look at or when you look at a table of results of tests on gasoline or diesel fuel or any kind of product you have to be aware of sampling requirements and of test precision requirements.
May I ask the minister how long the Petroleum Products Division has been based in Rankin Inlet, and how many years experience they have?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Netser. Minister Kilabuk.
I would like to invite one of my witnesses to address those questions, please.
If you could escort her please, Sergeant-at-Arms.
If you would introduce your official.
On my left we have Susan Makpah, who is the Director of the Petroleum Products Division.
I am sorry, Ms. Makpah.
My question was, the Shell representative implied that your staff in Rankin Inlet was incompetent when it come to taking samples of the products.
I believe it was Mr. Mitchell who made the claim.
How long has your staff been working in Rankin Inlet? I used to work for the Petroleum Products Division.
Could you tell us how long you have been working in there?
Ms. Makpah: The person that is responsible for operations of Petroleum Products Division has been with other departments.
He started off at the Petroleum Products Division officer back in the mid-90s and he has been with us for a couple of years now in headquarters.
So what you are saying then, he does have some experience in handling, taking samples and etc.... Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Makpah: If you are specifically asking for the gasoline that we sent out for retesting this summer, we have contractors in each community.
The contractors that we have in each community draw out the gasoline into a can sample and then we send it down to Alberta Research Council for testing, but the contractors we have in the communities are the ones that take the gasoline into a small can and we ship it down for testing.
May I ask how long has the contractor been the sole contractor for the Government of Nunavut and previous to becoming a territory?
Ms. Makpah: The contractor we have in Coral Harbour has been the contractor for quite some time now that started with Petroleum Products Division prior to the Government of Nunavut, and he was the contractor prior to me going into Petroleum Products Division.
We are not dealing with the Petroleum Products Division.
What we want to do is to get the information out there to the public, to the viewers.
I would like to thank you, Ms. Makpah, for answering my questions.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. Makpah and Mr. Netser.
Chairman (interpretation): I apologize. Mr. Netser has not completed his lines of questioning.
Again, in Coral Harbour, I think there are two vehicles that broke down.
What types of testing would we do to find out what caused this breakdown?
We have had a few communities come to our department to have some vehicles tested. I will be able to respond to that once we get the results.
Do you have to have a lot of vehicles break down before you can do any testing?
If the breakage is for the same, it doesn’t have to be a big number.
It’s quite expensive to have studies done.
For example, if you wanted to have that vehicle tested that recently broke down, we could do so.
I don’t have a lot of questions, but we keep going back to the vapor pressure release.
It seems like the problem is with the vapor pressure.
If you put in a new spark plug, the vehicle doesn’t start up right way.
You have to wait until the skidoo warms up, even though it’s a brand new machine.
We hear from the public out there that the government’s contractors, Shell Canada, if they’re going to keep Shell Canada as their contractors, there is going to be more vehicles breaking down.
That’s not a question, that was a comment.
First of all, a quick point because there has been an attempt, whether it’s deliberate or not, that this issue is related to spark plugs and that’s all it is.
Mr. Chairman, I want to be very clear that that is not the case and I said that during my opening remarks because I have invited Shell Canada for a number of times whether we should sit down with them.
I have urge your client Shell Canada.
I have notified your client since September of the bad gasoline.
I have provided information about broken outboard motors, 4 strokes and Mr. Netser, this is not restricted to two strokes.
Don’t get that whether you call it that you’re attempting to minimize the negative impact of Shell Canada products that it’s only creating spark plug problems.
If that’s the case, I said during my opening remarks I wouldn’t invite you here for spark plug problems because that would be silly and I don’t want to hear anything of that again.
Mr. Chairman, I want to ask Shell Canada why is it with the same speck from last year re-supply for gasoline and petroleum products, this year’s supply is different than last year.
Mr. Anderson: First of all, let me comment on the issue of other problems, a September outboard motor issue that we were asked to investigate and I believe you are familiar with it, resulted in us determining that there was a misapplication of aviation fuel in a four stroke engine.
Clearly, a misapplication of that magnitude would cause problems.
We have investigated a couple of RCMP vehicles who suggested that there was a fuel problem related to fuel pumps and after the investigation we found that the fuel pumps were run dry, that in the switching of tanks, whether automatic or manual, the fuel pumps are lubricated by the fuel themselves, and if they’re run dry, they melt.
That was a further investigation that we did early on.
So, we do take every concern about the fuel seriously.
We have found in many cases of the ones we have investigated where there has been a misdiagnosis of the problem, a misapplication of product.
I will say that this issue of spark plug fouling that we have found a short term solution for, we have taken very seriously and worked very hard to get to the point where we are today.
I do believe that there is a long term solution that may or may not include MMT.
To Mr. Curley’s point around what is the difference, the obvious difference has been the removal of MMT from product from last year to this year.
MMT wasn’t a specification.
It was in at that point to enhance octane.
Octane was achieved through other means.
It has been deemed to be a short term solution because of other attributes of MMT that we or the manufacturer was not aware of.
It appears to assist in the performance extremely cold temperatures.
If we determine that the Petroleum Products Division that MMT needs to be a specification included, the specifications can be changed and Shell will meet the specification.
Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Witness of Shell Canada: was it requested by the Petroleum Products Division that this particular octane additive, MMT, be removed for 2004-05 re-supply?
No, it was not a request of the Petroleum Products Division that it be removed.
Did you notify your clients that you were not going to include this product and did you advise them that there might be some change, and if so or if not, why not?
Shell made public announcements on a national basis that it was withdrawing the use of MMT in its manufacture of gasoline for any and all of its customers that would have been affected.
That public notice was made available on a very widespread basis.
So Shell Canada announced it publicly.
Could you table or send that information that you made that announcement?
You assume that just by virtue of that public announcement that your clients, perhaps significant clients with respect to Petroleum Products Division supply requirements in Nunavut, that you did not feel that you had to specifically contact Petroleum Products Division officials, that there might be some changes, if changes do happen, you didn’t just, by merely meeting the standards, that it was not important in your view to specifically notify Petroleum Products Division officials that there may be some impacts without this particular additive.
By failing to do so, did you not feel it important that you have added other octane booster levels, and if they are included in the re-supply, why didn’t you notify them?
Gasoline blends at different refineries to meet specification change every two weeks. Whether we use a different additive, a different amount of additive, we change the vapour pressure to meet RBP schedules.
The distillate diesel fuel, CP-43, the jet fuel, all of those are probably different in some respects from the supply you received last year as well.
Did we notify the Petroleum Products Division or any of our other clients the exact methodology, the exact dose of this component or that component to meet the specification?
No, and it’s not a requirement, it should not be the requirement as long as we meet the very stringent specifications as laid out.
I realize it’s not a requirement.
I don’t know what the requirement is, but if I have significant customers, I would think it’s important by virtue or courtesy that we advise them that there might be some changes or might be some impact.
So we will deal with the minister on that later.
But I just want to point one thing that I hope there’s no deliberate attempt.
When I pass a couple of samples that should be tested, there were two outboard motors that were presented to Petroleum Products Division, you now choose to deal with the ones that didn’t qualify or meet it.
That’s not an issue with me or this Committee.
The issue is there was one motor and I tabled, last week, a letter from the businessman of a toy company.
It’s important for a bad blizzard, now he has outboard motors that I tabled the results of that study in September and the problems associated with it in September.
I am not expecting you to be aware of it, but I did table it in due time.
How they got to you is a mystery to me, if there is a fact that you indicated that your client is Petroleum Products Division and what happens with the customers of the retail side is none of your business.
Is that how I understood what you’re saying?
Mr. Anderson: No, we couldn’t conduct proper investigations in conjunction with the Petroleum Product Division, if we did not have access to the information.
I don’t specifically need to know or my researchers don’t specifically need to know the names and addresses of the individuals but certainly we would be, in working in conjunction with the Petroleum Product Division, would like to understand what samples are being taken so that we may, we couldn’t have assisted in the short term solution had we not been given access to the information that’s available on the problem and going forward for a long term solution if we’re not given access to the information, test results, inquiries, motor parts, what have you, I think it would be very difficult to find a long terms solution.
Thanks for telling us that information.
So you won’t mind if we do have problems with seized engine outboard motors, who should we notify at the Shell Canada Company.
Mr. Anderson: All of the inquiries, all of the complaints are being handled through the Petroleum Product Division. Shell Canada is working together with the Petroleum Product Division to do whatever research is necessary to assist, direct, the Petroleum Product Division is our customer, and we are working with them to assist them with their customers.
I appreciate Shell Canada’s interest in getting information but they not interested in getting information directly from our retail buyers.
So it has to go through Petroleum Product Division.
We’ll deal with the government.
I have urged the government to hold consultations with the retail customers.
Let’s not all minimize the fact that that information has not been requested.
We have tried.
We don’t micromanage what they do.
We urged the government to do so.
How important is the re-supply contract to Shell Canada for Nunavut.
Mr. Anderson: The re-supply contract for Nunavut from Shell Canada, like many of our clients is a very important piece of business as is the relationship that we’ve established here.
We have a number of other communities that we have assets in Nunavik.
We supply the FCNQ Arctic type fuel for their locations throughout the Arctic as well.
In terms of the relationship, it is an extremely important relationship to us and we cherish it.
In terms of it’s percentage of refinery output on a volumetric basis, it’s very, very small.
Nonetheless a very, very important piece of business for us.
I have another question for you.
If the specifications are not changed from the last two years for the coming summer and year.
Will you be supplying the same type of gasoline or any other petroleum products to Nunavut.
If the re-supply of fuel comes before we have a definitive long term solution, decisions will have to be made with the Petroleum Product Division to potentially change, on a short term basis, the specification to include MMT as an example because as we know, through our test and the reintroduction of MMT that we are currently undertaking that it assists in the problem.
We do have a number of options through in determining the long term solution.
If we have it, it could look different.
If we don’t there is the option to re-supply out of Montreal into Churchill with a different refinery base production with or again without MMT.
Those are all decisions that Shell Canada, together with the Petroleum Product Division, will make over the next 60 days or so.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): So my understanding is that, unless the Petroleum Product Division changes the re-supply specification requirements, you will be providing the same gasoline, same supply to Nunavut.
So, having said that, have you been paid 100% for this year’s re-supply.
Mr. Anderson: On the first point, will we supply product on the specifications as laid out by the Government of Nunavut?
Whether that specification changes to include MMT or not, we will need the specification.
On the second point, I can’t comment, you’d have to ask our credit department.
That’s not area that I look at on a day to day operational basis, but I would assume so.
So, my understanding is, unless the Petroleum Product Division changes the tender and specifications for next year’s re-supply, you will supply the same gasoline.
So, I would advise the members of this committee to very seriously look at the budget and the estimates that we have yet to consider and I will recommend Mr. Chairman, one of the Members of the Legislative Assembly that this not approve or ask Shell Canada to re-supply next year’s.
Would that be fair that if you’re going to be providing a substandard gasoline supply to Nunavut without regard for what’s happening to the engines that are being broken and engines being seized, I’m not going to indulge you on that any longer.
I have the facts.
If the government wants them, if they will look at the, and consult with the members, they are available.
I had advised Mr. Ritchie as well with an e-mail through all that.
So, my point is if you will be providing Nunavummiut with the same supply, I have concerns.
I think many of the members here in the house have concerns.
I really believe that you need to come train and provide a better option by either responding to the public that we have had experience with broken engines and so on, that you are going to do a little more than just trying to conduct good PR while you are here.
Mr. Anderson: My appearance as a public relations effort or ploy as opposed to answering questions, nor was our donation to the community that you mentioned earlier.
That was approved, I approved the cheque sometime in June or July and had only assumed that it had been presented some time ago.
Again, it’s a coincidence as you may have suggested also.
We need to find a longer term solution and again, you asked are we going to supply the same product that we supplied this year or are we going to supply the same specification.
Those are two different issues in my belief.
We will supply the specification that is set by the Petroleum Product Division in consultation with ourselves and any other consultant or advice that we may take into consideration.
I would really hesitate to suggest that the fuel itself, the way that it was manufactured in it’s current state with out MMT, we know that that exact molecular chemistry has not served us well without MMT and we’re re-introducing MMT.
When you say will we re-supply with the exact same fuel, no.
Will we meet the same specification, we may meet the same specification, we may meet it a different way.
Will the specifications be changed.
That’s the work of the next number of days.
This will be my last point.
I certainly appreciate Shell Canada attempting to clarify their point a number of times, but I’m not 100% sure which supply they will be supplying.
You’re saying it’s going to depend on whether the Government of Nunavut changes their specifications or not, but I think really the responsibility lies with somebody.
If someone supplies substandard, you know, the gasoline supply that’s been sitting in some refinery may not have been sold to some other major buyer somewhere.
I don’t know what all of the factors are, but I don’t know exactly where that goes.
Did it sit around somewhere so long or what not?
Did it come directly from the refinery?
What lee time do you need to get it through the refinery process and so on?
Exactly when do the specifications be presented to you and when do you make up your mind to ship or supply Nunavut gasoline supplies at what point?
What criteria do you present to the government on whether what you are supplying would be acceptable or not?
First of all, on the issue of substandard fuel.
Quite the opposite, and I think we have gone into some length to explain that this fuel is Grade A++ relative to fuel that we supply in any other part of Western Canada within the Shell Edmonton orbit.
This fuel, because it is winter-grade gasoline manufactured in the summer, to think that it might sit around and not be or be available to someone, no one else would want this fuel.
This is a particular boutique type of blend fuel that we have to manufacture specifically to put into specific isolated tanks to specifically load rail cars for this specific piece of business.
It is a very unique blend of winter gasoline made in the summer, not available for anybody else.
We manufacture it, it’s shipped within days of manufacture because we can’t have the tanks nor would we want the tanks tied up for any length of time and the product is railed into Churchill and stored there for redelivery into the communities.
Again, I think anyone looking at the specification as a third party, looking at the uniqueness of it, would say that this is a superior grade, a superior specification of gasoline and far from something that could be dangerous as substandard.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
I just have one more comment.
Yes, up north, we depend on a lot on government departments because that’s all we have.
For example, municipal services, doctors, nurses, buying sealskins, fuel is one of them, we have nothing else.
So in that comment, I think we are trying to give you a message, whether it’s Shell or Government of Nunavut, if they are doing the mixing at the refinery level, we are trying to give you, either when the mixing is done because we will be dependent on that gasoline.
There is nothing else we have besides what we get for re-supply.
There are a lot of people out there that have nothing else.
Their snow machine, that’s their snow machine, they don’t have a truck or something like that.
So I think the message that we are trying to give you is that when the mixing is done at the refinery level or wherever, try to be there and we are depending on you in the Arctic.
So that’s my comment.
If I heard correctly, that you mentioned also, Nunavik is served by Shell Canada.
Did you said Nunavik?
We supply our own three communities in Nunavik, where we have Shell Canada assets on the ground.
The largest of those communities being Kuujjuaq.
We also supply FCNQ, the Federation Cooperative of Nouveaux Quebec, who supplies into many areas within the same region.
I think some 30 communities in total between our communities where we have Shell Canada assets and the FCNQ communities.
Those are supplied out of our Montreal refinery.
Mr. Kattuk: In that sense, do they also have concerns about the gasoline or is it just the Baffin and Kivalliq that are concerned about the re-supply.
We have had zero complaints out of the communities that we service with our own assets as well as zero complaints with FCNQ on their supply.
We are not completed yet.
I wonder if they can stay in town until tomorrow, at the witness table.
I’ll let them respond themselves.
We had not anticipated it.