Pipeline and Protest
 

What do you guys think?

I personally think there is a lot more engineering, quality control and assurance in engineered pipelines over pill/drugged-up truck drivers.

It's going to go from A-B anyways, this is a safer (but slightly disruptive) way

What do you guys think? I'm an industry guy and I believe that things like this need to happen to strengthen the economy.

And those protesters were doing a good job until they started chaining themselves and 'chasing' workers telling them to get 'real jobs'..... Seriously?

Pipelines is good.

agreed. has to happen and prob safer.

There's already hundreds of pipelines running through every neighborhood carrying jet fuel and oil.

Don't want a pipeline? Then I don't want to pay for social housing.

Drill baby, Drill. :rant

If it wasn't this they would be complaining about something else.. They people are a waste of skin and don't contribute to society at all.. Most of them don't work and all they do is bitch about life when they are not willing to make life better for themselves.

The pipeline is a great thing and I'm happy they are going a head with it..

Surprised at the responses so far, I'm glad everyone is on board.

Are there no hippies on revscene?

Yes to pipelines. Though I may be biased due to the fact that I work in the industry...

What people need to realize is that they have two options:

1) Scream like idiots trying to stop a project that is going to happen whether they like it or not, and therefore have zero input into the design process.
2) Accept that the project is going to go forward and work with the developers to ensure that the pipeline is built properly and that legitimate concerns are addressed.

Haven't been following the news lately, but what is their concerns against the pipeline?

I "think" I am for it.

Safe to say most people are for it because we just love that dirty oil money. Until it leaks in some way shape and form anyways. :troll:

The oil must flow

The cities that the Pipeline cross needs to have a bigger piece of the pie. Say 35% of total revenue from the pipeline goes towards all the cities. That's fair.

How is that fair? are you talking gross or net? and are cities going to take 35% responsibility if something happens?

are you just pulling numbers out of a hat or do you have some legitimate information?

There will always be pipelines, even now I am willing to bet there is one less than 50 feet away from you that carries natural gas to your home/work/school. A lot of these protesters are just misinformed, and now they are breaking a court order and crying "police abuse" when the RCMP is only trying to do their job.

It's ridiculous, if it's not a pipeline I guarantee these same people will be somewhere else trying to make a nuisance of themselves and making it hard for low-paid workers (i.e., the people actually on the ground doing survey work, construction, etc.) to do the job that they were told to do. How would you like it if some neckbeard barged into your work place and made it impossible for you to work in peace, all the while they are complaining about stuff that is way over your head in terms of pay grade, etc.? Just doesn't make sense lol.

^ they're the equivalent of the people who bitch at the guy working the counter at McDonalds when prices go up. If they really, truly wanted to protest with some level of intelligence they'd be outside the main office of the company developing the pipeline.

There is risk in EVERY method to convey oil/gas. Accidents can/will happen.

Pipelines in my opinion are the safest. They can be monitored and controlled much more effectively than trucks & trains.

They actually have three options, take a little trip to the 'anti fracking' rally

Someone tell those useless protestors to not eat, pee or shit because that's going to harm our climate by using resources and creating waste.

100% on board for twinning the pipeline and adding more. I'm just glad the RCMP finally started arresting the protesters.

Hmmmm...

Pipelines typically only "cross" cities in the following situations;
- Existing shared ROW crosses through city, more often than not this is because the shared ROW was in place long before the area was developed
- There is no practical alternative route

Major reasons we do not cross cities in our design include
- Significantly higher consequence of failure in the event of a rupture/leak
- Higher material costs as a result of CSA Z662 dwelling concentration categories (There is a higher safety factor in highly populated areas that require pipe which either has a higher wall thickness or a higher SMYS)
- Higher construction costs and significant schedule impacts associated with building in developed areas
- Significant schedule and cost impacts related to a large number of landowner agreements
- Limited space for future development, expansion, or maintenance
- And about a million other reasons...

More often than not, in my experience, the ROW's that tend to cross the most densely populated areas are those which were installed by a Public Institution (IE: Line 9 which was initially commissioned by the NEB, later purchased by Enbridge). No pipeline owner/operator wants to go anywhere near a heavily populated area.

Now having said all that, imagine if a pipeline did cross major cities, if every one of those cities had a royalty of even 5% there would be no incentive for a pipeline company to commission the line.

Are we going to start making telecom companies or power companies pay royalties to municipalities for their transmission lines or radio waves? That would be great… so they can pass the costs along to the consumer, yay more public income to mismanage!

The pipeline does benefit people in nearby communities, in many small towns with limited industry it's basically the dream to get on with the pipeline company in operations or maintenance etc.

I wrote this message from my desk on the 11th floor of an office tower for one of the biggest pipeline companies in the world, we are not evil, we work very hard to do everything right and to protect people and the environment. The people that work here are normal people, they also don't want a pipeline to explode behind their house etc. There is always going to be some degree or risk, but I can tell you that we eliminate every single risk we possibly can and no comprimise in safety or quality is ever made in the interest of saving money - ever.

At this point I will bring up the most significant risk pipelines operators face - external factors out of our control. A good example of this would be what happened with the Burnaby Kinder Morgan line strike. In this case a contractor was hired to work on a sewer line in close proximity to the crude pipeline, shortly after the work begin the crude line was ruptured by a excavator being operated by Cusano Contracting.

Cusano Contracting claimed that Kinder Morgan did not mark the line correctly. Kinder Morgan is an experienced pipeline company with a near-perfect track record of operating their pipelines. Cusano Contracting is/was a very small and seemingly inexperience construction contractor selected by the City of Burnaby to perform this work based on the fact that they were the lower bidder. "The contractors misjudged the pipeline by about three meters", city spokeswoman Susan Rae said. Just from the most basic rules of ground disturbance they never should have had an excavator that close to an existing line - this is why god invented the shovel, detail bucket, jackhammer, and Hydrovac truck.

Yet somehow people take a story like this, and from it, assert that pipelines are not safe. I would argue that incompetent construction contractors are not safe.

I find most people in BC to be very reasonable and objective when it comes to pipelines, there are only a small number of anti-fossil fuel types who will only be satisfied when the whole world runs on green energy.. meanwhile these people continue to suck back resources at an alarming rate lol. #hypocrites

pro pipeline.

the reason it goes through is because people actually want it.

The safety of pipelines is the general consensus not only in pro-oil circles but in green circles, too, because considering protection of the environment to be a priority does not entail a lack of intelligence. The green opposition to pipelines generally surrounds the increasing of oil development their building implies or their being routed through ecologically sensitive regions. I'm generally in pro pipeline but when I'm not its not for the reasons being suggested here.

Still so what you are just trying to say is well since we are safe and create jobs therefore we aren't paying you guys a penny.

Sure maybe you guys are safest but there is a chance of an accident and when accidents occur who pays for the full cost of the clean up and all the environment clean up cost? I am sure hell know not any company in the world will cover the cost of clean up 100%. They can't because the environment damage is on going and that's when the city is hook for the bill. A bill that us tax payers are on the hook for. So why shouldn't the city take a cut from it because the risk is on their end.