CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 3:26 pm
 


I was listening to cross country checkup talk about the Energy East project. A woman from North Bay phoned in to say the line runs right underneath the water supply for the town, and if there was a spill, the town would be farked.

Let's discount the no pipelines because no oil sands because global warming crowd right away. No point arguing about that.

What I don't hear from the Alberta contingent on CKA much, is concern about the environment and the possible dangers of pipes and tankers, not just to the environment, but to people's lives. Might not do you much good to have a job from the oil business if you can't live in your town because the water is farked up.

We know how big oil operates. A certain CKA member who likes to rave how people hate Alberta, also raved on about how the Gulf of Mexico spill was caused by BP being to cheap to install a 1 million dollar check valve. Well that thinking goes right thru the oil business, it's not just BP, any oil or pipeline or tanker ship company is going to try to save a buck where ever they can. What worries people near any pipes is the example of the Enbridge spill at Kalamazoo, and the debacle that followed. Yet they want to build pipe thru BC, with that same mindset.

I don't expect any different from business - that's their job, to maximize profit. But it's up to government to set very strict standards for these projects, and then to monitor and enforce those standards. Including sufficient insurance on the part of the companies. This is where the previous govt fell down. They were just cheerleaders for any pipe, anywhere, any time. They eliminated the Kits Point Coast Guard base which allowed the Marathasa spill to be as bad as it was. And the spill response crew that was supposed to man the Richmond base was up in Prince Rupert, for whatever reason.

That spill is what turned me against the Transmountain project. I figured the pipe route was already in place, they were already shipping some dilbit out of the harbor, what could go wrong? Well we saw what could go wrong, unless a govt is in place that actually gets it, that isn't just a cheerleader for the oil industry, .

So the pro-pipe people need to get their heads around the environmental dangers of the projects and the huge costs ignoring those dangers would bring. Whether it's economical to have these projects, with very stringent safety conditions, I don't know. I know if those conditions aren't in place, we could be well and truly farked.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Pittsburgh Penguins
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2146
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 4:33 pm
 


And the only other alternate method of transport - by rail - is so safe. Give me a well-regulated pipeline any day.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Pittsburgh Penguins
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2146
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 4:33 pm
 


And the only other alternate method of transport - by rail - is so safe. Give me a well-regulated pipeline any day.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Pittsburgh Penguins
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2146
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 4:33 pm
 


And the only other alternate method of transport - by rail - is so safe. Give me a well-regulated pipeline any day.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 31461
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 4:47 pm
 


In the words of the immortal Rod Stewart, there ain't no point in talkin' when there ain't nobody listenin', and that's all I'm going to bother with in terms of responding to this ridiculous troll-job of a thread.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 4:59 pm
 


Mowich Mowich:
And the only other alternate method of transport - by rail - is so safe. Give me a well-regulated pipeline any day.


Guess you meant it so much you said it trice.

Sure, the key word being well regulated. Like the 2nd amendment - not so much in the US, not so much in Canada. That is exactly what I was saying, that pipes and tankers need to be well regulated. Not cheerled by the govt of the day.

I do wonder if the rail argument is like the pitt bull argument. People say some small breed of dog bites far more than a pit bull, not considering that the pit bull does far more damage. So maybe trains have more incidents but do less over all damage. If a train spills, it's known right away. Pipelines, as we've seen can continue to spill over days. And if Lac Megantic is mentioned, that train wasn't carrying no dilbit. Also, that was human error - can happen just as easily with a pipe. That said, I don't know the statistics of train vs pipe spills, but I've certainly never heard of a train spill like Kalamazoo.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 78
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 5:08 pm
 


Mowich Mowich:
And the only other alternate method of transport - by rail - is so safe. Give me a well-regulated pipeline any day.
I don't believe andyt said anything concerning rail safety. As I read it he's opposed specifically to the present trans mountain proposal and in general to inadequate environmental/social concern by industry, coupled with poor regulation and enforcement by government.

Neither rail nor pipelines have shown themselves reliably safe so far.

Whether the oft-repeated notion - that the exclusive purpose of business must be maximising profit - is morally defensible I seriously question.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 78
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 5:14 pm
 


andyt andyt:
I do wonder if the rail argument is like the pitt bull argument.
Noting that usually the pitbull defenders are pibull owners - i.e. they have something personal to gain or lose.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Boston Bruins


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11907
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 5:43 pm
 


Thanos Thanos:
In the words of the immortal Rod Stewart, there ain't no point in talkin' when there ain't nobody listenin', and that's all I'm going to bother with in terms of responding to this ridiculous troll-job of a thread.

Agree 100%.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 5:58 pm
 


To be clear, I'm for any system of transport that can be shown to have very stringent safety systems in place and sufficient insurance to pay for cleanup if something does go wrong. To use the BP example, it would not be an option for a company to skip using a costly safety valve, because there would be a govt inspector in place to make sure the valve is installed and maintained. Pipelines would not be able to spill for hours or days before action is taken. The Kalamazoo spilled 1 million gallons of dilbit. The dilutant evaporated, leaving the bitumen to sink in the river where it was hard to clean up.


The excuse for Keystone is that Texas has excess refining capacity, so it makes sense to ship dilbit there. In the mean time we've closed refinery after refinery in Canada. Does that really make sense. So now we ship our "oil" south at cheap prices, then import the refined products back at high US prices. Our whole oil system seems nuts to me. Guess this is what happens when you dance to big oil's tune instead of taking control of your own resources.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 78
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 6:05 pm
 


andyt andyt:
To be clear, I'm for any system of transport that can be shown to have very stringent safety systems in place and sufficient insurance to pay for cleanup if something does go wrong. To use the BP example, it would not be an option for a company to skip using a costly safety valve, because there would be a govt inspector in place to make sure the valve is installed and maintained. Pipelines would not be able to spill for hours or days before action is taken. The Kalamazoo spilled 1 million gallons of dilbit. The dilutant evaporated, leaving the bitumen to sink in the river where it was hard to clean up.


The excuse for Keystone is that Texas has excess refining capacity, so it makes sense to ship dilbit there. In the mean time we've closed refinery after refinery in Canada. Does that really make sense. So now we ship our "oil" south at cheap prices, then import the refined products back at high US prices. Our whole oil system seems nuts to me. Guess this is what happens when you dance to big oil's tune instead of taking control of your own resources.


Agree 100%


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 6642
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:09 pm
 


Just addressing the concern about the lack of concern from Albertans.

We are surrounded by pipelines, both oil and natural gas. There are tens of thousands of km of pipelines in this province. It isn't that there are no leaks, but they are rare. The ones that do occur are relatively small because fail safes that are mandated by law are all put in place. Having lived with it for so long with barely any incidents has made us comfortable with it.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22194
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 10:41 pm
 


andyt andyt:
I was listening to cross country checkup talk about the Energy East project. A woman from North Bay phoned in to say the line runs right underneath the water supply for the town, and if there was a spill, the town would be farked.

Let's discount the no pipelines because no oil sands because global warming crowd right away. No point arguing about that.

What I don't hear from the Alberta contingent on CKA much, is concern about the environment and the possible dangers of pipes and tankers, not just to the environment, but to people's lives. Might not do you much good to have a job from the oil business if you can't live in your town because the water is farked up.

We know how big oil operates. A certain CKA member who likes to rave how people hate Alberta, also raved on about how the Gulf of Mexico spill was caused by BP being to cheap to install a 1 million dollar check valve. Well that thinking goes right thru the oil business, it's not just BP, any oil or pipeline or tanker ship company is going to try to save a buck where ever they can. What worries people near any pipes is the example of the Enbridge spill at Kalamazoo, and the debacle that followed. Yet they want to build pipe thru BC, with that same mindset.

I don't expect any different from business - that's their job, to maximize profit. But it's up to government to set very strict standards for these projects, and then to monitor and enforce those standards. Including sufficient insurance on the part of the companies. This is where the previous govt fell down. They were just cheerleaders for any pipe, anywhere, any time. They eliminated the Kits Point Coast Guard base which allowed the Marathasa spill to be as bad as it was. And the spill response crew that was supposed to man the Richmond base was up in Prince Rupert, for whatever reason.

That spill is what turned me against the Transmountain project. I figured the pipe route was already in place, they were already shipping some dilbit out of the harbor, what could go wrong? Well we saw what could go wrong, unless a govt is in place that actually gets it, that isn't just a cheerleader for the oil industry, .

So the pro-pipe people need to get their heads around the environmental dangers of the projects and the huge costs ignoring those dangers would bring. Whether it's economical to have these projects, with very stringent safety conditions, I don't know. I know if those conditions aren't in place, we could be well and truly farked.


One of the biggest problems in the pipeline discussion IMHO is the automatic assumption that every leak from any pipeline is going to be a catastrophic one, when most of them are pretty small and contained quickly.

Image

The fact is that those massive spills are the exception, not the rule, but opponents - be they FN, environmentalists or just NIMBY people, automatically go to that argument right off the bat.

You yourself did it by mentioning Kalamazoo and insinuating that expanding TransMountain would led to one, even though there hasn't been a big one from TM in the more than 50 years its been operating.

Take a look for example at TM's marine spill history:

$1:
Since 1956, vessels from our Westridge Marine Terminal have been transporting petroleum products safely through Port Metro Vancouver without a single spill from a tanker.


http://www.transmountain.com/spill-history

And yet, for some reason, your biggest fear is something that has NEVER happened in 60 years of operation.

Further, most spills, when they do happen, are relatively small and easily dealt with. Here's TM's pipeline spill history:

$1:
The remaining 30.5% of Trans Mountain’s spills have occurred along the pipeline, with 21 incidents related to releases of crude oil from the pipeline. Of these spills, only nine exceeded the reporting threshold of 1.5 m3 — with just three of those nine occurring in the last 35 years. In all of these circumstances, Trans Mountain deployed its emergency response and spill management procedures.


http://www.transmountain.com/spill-history

The other really inconvenient truth is that most pipelines run most of the time without a leak or a spill. Even if you take every barrel spilled in a giant spill like Kalamazoo, it's a trickle compared to what actually flowed through the pipe in its lifetime.

To me, it's roughly the same as deciding not to ever drive a car again because you got in an accident once.

At the end of the day though, logic NEVER defeats emotion - and if someone is dead set against pipelines for whatever reason (climate change, economic benefits, location, whatever), no amount of evidence will ever change their minds.

Having said that, that is why an organization like the NEB exists - to remove emotion from the equation and look at facts and only facts for the pipeline in question.

Going forward, my question is how much of Trudeau's changes to the regulatory process will hamper/assist the future development of pipelines in this country.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 10:52 pm
 


Well, that's good. The govt needs to put out a lot more information about what safety procedures are in place. As I said, the gong show in Vancouver harbor certainly convinced me that a lot more needs to be done as far as marine safety is concerned. And I'm sure the same applies to over land shipping, whether by pipe or rail. And yes, that may cause problems for some projects, but damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead just isn't going to cut it anymore.

It's not about being dead set against them, it's not a black or white question. It's about knowing that we took the best precautions we could, and that the companies can't weasel out if things go wrong. We're still living under the Harper regime as far as regulations go, so I'm sure there lots of improvement possible.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 9:14 am
 


Mowich Mowich:
And the only other alternate method of transport - by rail - is so safe. Give me a well-regulated pipeline any day.


Rail transport is perfectly safe.

Image


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.