REVscene Automotive Forum
Page 3 of 7 12 3 4567
Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)
-   Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-off-topic-current-events_50/)
-   -   BC's Huge Gamble - Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline controversy (https://www.revscene.net/forums/663169-bcs-huge-gamble-enbridge-northern-gateway-pipeline-controversy.html)

DB2-R81 03-02-2012 02:50 PM
MAP: Length of 1989 Exxon Valdez spill overlaid on the BC coastline.

Twitter

Soundy 03-02-2012 04:49 PM
^None of the shows how much of the coastline actually saw any oil and how much of it simply dissipated at sea. :failed:

DB2-R81 03-03-2012 06:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy (Post 7816711)
^None of the shows how much of the coastline actually saw any oil and how much of it simply dissipated at sea. :failed:
Don't read or write very competently do you? Please try reading again under Note that source:

Death2Theft 03-03-2012 08:51 AM
Responding based on emotion, without reading. Then making himself look like an ass clown, after failing you is what this guy specializes in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DB2-R81 (Post 7817175)
Don't read or write very competently do you? Please try reading again under Note that source:

penner2k 03-03-2012 09:35 AM
The chance of having a spill with new pipes is pretty slim and if they do they can shut it down pretty quick. The issue is human error when they dig where they shouldnt..

Every weld gets xray'd. Once they are done a section they pump it full of water and pressurize it much higher then needed to be sure its gonna hold.

Which is better btw. Canada benefiting from this or getting oil from hostile areas or drilling in the ocean. At least if there is an oil spill in the middle of nowhere they can contain it pretty quick.
And for the person that said only Alberta and Asia benefit from it quit bitching about it and work if you want to benefit. I'd say 25% of the people that I work with live in BC.

penner2k 03-03-2012 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MindBomber (Post 7802527)
I agree, it's not entirely impartial, but it's not terribly biased.

You and I have biases as well.



Auguston is very small, I would estimate the population as under 1200. Yes, only fifty people actually showed up, but that would be very near or at the capacity of Straiton Hall where the meeting was held. No mention in the article of it, but it's possible not everyone interested in attending was able to get in.

I read another article where a person reported two visits to the emergency room, because she was distressed by the symptoms.

As a reflection of the number of people who were ill, my friend, who is an RN, lives in Auguston with five other healthy people and they all felt ill. Speaking to her, she reports the symptoms were shared all the neighbors she spoke to.



They all shared the same symptoms, as far as I understand.
So I work around this shit all day long and am healthier then ever yet these people all got sick from a little bit of exposure. Fuck I worked with invert for months which is seriously bad for you and I didnt have any issues.

IMO maybe one or two people legitimately had issues with it. The rest just thought they were having issues. The brain is a funny thing. If you honestly in your head believe that you should be having issues you will.

penner2k 03-03-2012 09:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy (Post 7804055)
I get a kick out of some the arguments around the job creation...

"Oh well, those thousands of jobs are only temporary" - yeah, ANY construction job is only temporary. Doesn't matter what you're building, sooner or later it will be finished, and you'll move on to the next construction job. This is the way it's been since the first caveman built the first rock-and-log skyscraper. Meantime, those construction workers will be able to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads for another two or three years... you go tell their kids that they can't have Christmas because daddy's next job will only be "temporary".

"Oh, sure there will be permanent jobs, but only about 50 of them" - yeah, that's 50 more families that get to eat and stay warm in the winter and have Christmas, too. In the grand scheme of things, sure it's a miniscule drop in a very large bucket... you go tell those families to their faces that they're insignificant.

It reminds me of an old poem:



The refinery point is an interesting one... you run into the same problem you have with log exports, in that your customers only want to buy the raw materials. Mills are up in arms saying that they should be cutting up the logs and then sending the finished lumber overseas, but if the customers don't want that lumber and can get the logs from elsewhere, you end up with a bunch of wood sitting around rotting. Likewise, you can process the bitumen and ship them the refined products, except they're not interested (or less interested) in the refined products... and you need those sales to repay the cost of building the refinery.

To put it in terms that this board can understand: if you're into building your own Skyline, you're going to want to buy all the parts separately... you're not going to be interested if Nissan will ONLY sell you the complete thing... so it's in Nissan's best interests to make the raw parts available to you.
lol @ only 50 jobs for a pipeline that big. There is 15 welders alone working one the gathering lines for the sites I'm working on. That pipe is maybe 5 km long. Then you have pipefitters, electricians, scaffolders, super heat (pipe has to be kept at a consistent temperature before and after its welded), management, QC for our company, QC for Suncor, crane operators, truck drivers, and more that I cant even think about.
I'd say for a 5 km pipeline you have $50K+ a day in wages easy.. for a pipeline that is as long as gateway you will be $250k a day going into the economy but most likely much more.

Soundy 03-03-2012 09:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death2Theft (Post 7817215)
Responding based on emotion, without reading. Then making himself look like an ass clown, after failing you is what this guy specializes in.
:lawl: Posting in front of a mirror again?

penner2k 03-03-2012 10:01 AM
As far as the refinery issue goes from what I've heard the amount of money it costs to build a refinery and keep it running does not make it worth the additional profits they get over just selling it raw.

Death2Theft 03-03-2012 10:22 AM
You could always make a second attempt at un assclowning yourself in my emp/nuke thread but you would not succeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy (Post 7817263)
:lawl: Posting in front of a mirror again?

Soundy 03-03-2012 12:16 PM
Sorry, your EMP thread was assclowned from its very inception.

Besides, YOU seeing me as an assclown, I take as the highest compliment.

twitchyzero 10-30-2012 10:04 AM
bump

With the recent quake + afterschocks I'm now on the anti- side of this issue. I know it's already been discussed.

All it takes is an epicenter closer and shallower in the sea bed to have a huge mess on our coast. Better safe than sorry.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...86319665_n.jpg

Soundy 10-30-2012 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by twitchyzero (Post 8068487)
bump

With the recent quake + afterschocks I'm now on the anti- side of this issue. I know it's already been discussed.

All it takes is an epicenter closer and shallower in the sea bed to have a huge mess on our coast. Better safe than sorry.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...86319665_n.jpg
Yeah, a few problems with that...

1. There are no major fault lines closer to the planned port, thus almost zero chance of a major quake with a "closer" epicenter.

2. Seismic stresses have now been relieved in this area of the fault, further reducing the chance of another major quake in the area.

3. The facility would *have* to be built to the highest seismic standards if it were to get approval in the first place.

4. By this thinking then, there should be NO oil facilities of ANY kind, ANYWHERE on the west coast of North America.

5. Whoever made this chart shows their own bias and destroys their own credibility with the "NO TAR SANDS" bit, as the tar sands see ZERO impact from any west coast earthquake.

6. Actually, the "NO TANKERS" bit is pretty stupid too, since they wouldn't be directly affected by any earthquake in the area, and would only be affected by a tsunami if they were near shore. Further, because the fault is off the west side of Haida Gwaii, the inlet to Kitimat is pretty much shielded from any tsunami generated along that section of the fault (this is obvious in the picture). Add to that, because it's a lateral-slip fault, there's little chance of a tsunami of any substantial size being generated in the first place - tsunamis like those in Japan and Indonesia were created by subduction-zone quakes.

Basically the picture looks like it was made by some eco-weenie with an anti-oil agenda and zero grounding in seismic or geological theory. But, you know... take it for what it's worth.

Hondaracer 10-30-2012 06:05 PM
u work at suncor's upgrader penner?

jasonturbo 10-30-2012 06:10 PM
Doesn't that image seem a little desperate? "Let's try to find any reason we can to prevent the pipeline from being installed.. EARTHQUAKES!!!!."

iEatClams 10-30-2012 06:36 PM
I'm trying to remain unbiased on the issue, and I understand most the economical benefits of this pipeline as well as most of the environmental risks associated with it, and right now I'm kinda undecided if I approve of this thing or not.

To the people that support this the pipeline, what are some of the safeguards that will prevent an oil tanker spill?

Myself personally, I'm not worried about the pipelines themselves as they are usually in remote places, and as long as it doesn't spill into a major river/stream, relatively minimal damage will be done.

But what about what happens once the oil goes into the tankers, and is now the responsibility of the ships/tankers? What safeguards will these ships have that will prevent them from spilling? I can easily see an oil spill coming down all the way to the southern vancouver islands. BP oil spill was 130 Million gallons into the Gulf of Mexico? which would cover the size of Vancouver Island.

I heard there is liability issues that the tankers would not be fully responsible if a spill occurs. Can someone that supports this oil spill comment on these issues?

jasonturbo 10-30-2012 07:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by azndude69 (Post 8068922)
I'm trying to remain unbiased on the issue, and I understand most the economical benefits of this pipeline as well as most of the environmental risks associated with it, and right now I'm kinda undecided if I approve of this thing or not.

To the people that support this the pipeline, what are some of the safeguards that will prevent an oil tanker spill?

Myself personally, I'm not worried about the pipelines themselves as they are usually in remote places, and as long as it doesn't spill into a major river/stream, relatively minimal damage will be done.

But what about what happens once the oil goes into the tankers, and is now the responsibility of the ships/tankers? What safeguards will these ships have that will prevent them from spilling? I can easily see an oil spill coming down all the way to the southern vancouver islands. BP oil spill was 130 Million gallons into the Gulf of Mexico? which would cover the size of Vancouver Island.

I heard there is liability issues that the tankers would not be fully responsible if a spill occurs. Can someone that supports this oil spill comment on these issues?
As I said long ago in this thread...

Quote:
I do agree that Kitimats location and geographic features increase the possibility of a tanker accident and the complexity of a clean up in the event of a spill.

I would be happy to see them re-route and construct a new port/terminal dedicated to the pipeline at a location which takes the above concerns into consideration."
I have already chimed in on how I believe pipelines to be the superior method of transporting crude and that's all my angle has ever been about, people really need to understand that if they ever managed to block the pipeline, all that crude would just end up on trains.

Tankers... well there is a reason they register them to questionable coutries.

But then the issue is not the pipeline at all, and what's to stop tankers from going up and down the coast at this very minute?

Any given day if you take a look at Burrard Inlet you will see dozens of tankers... I'm pretty sure those tankers aren't all full of grain and ore...

twitchyzero 10-30-2012 07:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy (Post 8068876)
Yeah, a few problems with that...

1. There are no major fault lines closer to the planned port, thus almost zero chance of a major quake with a "closer" epicenter.

2. Seismic stresses have now been relieved in this area of the fault, further reducing the chance of another major quake in the area.

3. The facility would *have* to be built to the highest seismic standards if it were to get approval in the first place.

4. By this thinking then, there should be NO oil facilities of ANY kind, ANYWHERE on the west coast of North America.
I wasn't posting the picture to say I was against tar sands/tankers
I am not seismologist and I was unable to find out how deep the juan de fuca plate is...but if kitmat is ~200km from the plate...it's not absurd for people to get worried when a 8-9 scale quake hits

epicenters don't have to be exactly at a fault line but they don't create the catastrophic quakes

there also seems to be very little info online about oil rigs and earthquake..hell i couldn't find how many rigs there are on the west coast (aside from a few by california)...i was under the impression most of them were in the gulf of mexico.

MindBomber 10-30-2012 08:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by twitchyzero (Post 8069011)
there also seems to be very little info online about oil rigs and earthquake..hell i couldn't find how many rigs there are on the westcoast or in the ring of fire for that matter...i was under the impression most of them were in the gulf of mexico.
Limited oil exploration did take place off the coast of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia in the sixties, but with limited to no success. A federal moratorium has prohibited further oil exploration along the West Coast of British Columbia since 1972. Outside of extreme right-wing conservatives, I'm unaware of any movement to lift the moratorium currently.

iEatClams 10-30-2012 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonturbo (Post 8068962)
As I said long ago in this thread...



I have already chimed in on how I believe pipelines to be the superior method of transporting crude and that's all my angle has ever been about, people really need to understand that if they ever managed to block the pipeline, all that crude would just end up on trains.

Tankers... well there is a reason they register them to questionable coutries.

But then the issue is not the pipeline at all, and what's to stop tankers from going up and down the coast at this very minute?

Any given day if you take a look at Burrard Inlet you will see dozens of tankers... I'm pretty sure those tankers aren't all full of grain and ore...
I agree with your assessment that pipelines are the best way to go, and I guess the issues I have personally is with the shipping companies. I did some research and there currently are no large mass tankers of the proposed size that travel within BC's North coast.

Perhaps the government can somehow enforce tankers to better safeguard their ships or somehow enforce more strict liability requirements; this along with re-locating the site so they do not have to navigate the treacherous seas around kitimat would probably satisfy my personal issues with this project.

I'm not sure what BC's requirements are, but Washington and Alaska has sizable funds reserved in case of an oil disaster and requires that all oil tankers be double hulled and escorted with two tug-boats (Alaska). Another option to consider which I have already stated in this thread is to limit the size of the tankers. Or time/season/weather/temperature restrictions so it's not sailing during times of high risk.

With regards to the burrard inlet, there is significant opposition to the Kinder Morgan Expansion for the Burrard Inlet, and I personally am opposed to that project as I don't want more ships sitting there. Even though the risks are low, more ships = higher risk of spills. I cant imagine the possibility of an oil spill around the waters of english bay/ burrard inlet, stanley park/spanish banks, kits etc. To me, that's the best parts of Vancouver.

iEatClams 10-30-2012 08:44 PM
^ it seems that large vessels that are not double-hulled can no longer operate in Canadian waters

Oil Tanker Safety and Oil Spill Prevention:
Oil Tanker Safety and Oil Spill Prevention - Transport Canada

iEatClams 10-30-2012 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonturbo (Post 8068962)

Tankers... well there is a reason they register them to questionable coutries.
From that same website:

Ships of Particular Interest

A specific Transport Canada program, known as “Ships of Particular Interest,” targets certain foreign ships banned from entering Paris Memorandum* member ports before they arrive in Canada. The program involves reviewing past incident reports and the quality of ships as assessed by third parties (i.e., foreign governments, pilots, crews, etc.), allowing Transport Canada to target its inspection to vessels that are more likely not to meet safety standards and regulatory requirements. This program, combined with Canada's Port State Control program, has been highly effective in discouraging substandard ships from coming to Canada.

Soundy 10-30-2012 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by azndude69 (Post 8068922)
I'm trying to remain unbiased on the issue, and I understand most the economical benefits of this pipeline as well as most of the environmental risks associated with it, and right now I'm kinda undecided if I approve of this thing or not.
I approve of the IDEA - Canada has a major potential customer in China, IF we can get them the product they want. The more I'm hearing about Enbridge though, the less I like the idea of them doing it, at least without major oversight and hand-holding and a LOT of guarantees in the way of a massive contingency fund.

Quote:
To the people that support this the pipeline, what are some of the safeguards that will prevent an oil tanker spill?
Like Jason said, there are tankers of all kinds already going up and down the coast and in and out of Vancouver and Burnaby's harbours and have been for decades... so all this worry about THIS route all of a sudden seems a bit much. I mean, how many major spills along our coastline can you name in the last 30-40 years? Well, there's Exxon Valdez, and then there's.... uhhh.... Exxon Valdez.... uuuhhhh....

And now they ships are built to even higher seaworthiness standards, with GPS-tracked computer guidance... sure nothing's ever 100%, but...

Quote:
Myself personally, I'm not worried about the pipelines themselves as they are usually in remote places, and as long as it doesn't spill into a major river/stream, relatively minimal damage will be done.
The major concern with the pipeline is the particular type of processed bitumen it would carry, stuff that's mixed with a thinning agent (for easy flowing) that for various reasons, would make a spill particularly difficult to clean up.

Quote:
I can easily see an oil spill coming down all the way to the southern vancouver islands.
Unfortunately, your vision does not match the general ocean currents:

http://www.crd.bc.ca/watersheds/prot...mp_000_000.jpg

The Alaska Current would generally move the oil northward from any route out of Kitimat and around Haida Gwaii.

Quote:
BP oil spill was 130 Million gallons into the Gulf of Mexico? which would cover the size of Vancouver Island.
Irrelevant... mainly because that oil was spewing steadily out of a "relatively limitless" reservoir. The BP spill was on the order of 4 million barrels; the types of supertankers most likely to be used on this route carry between 450,000 and 700,000 barrels, so even at the very worst, if a tanker was completely drained, it would be maybe 1/5 that of the BP spill (and it's unlikely, because of the ships' compartmented designs, that and entire load would be lost in a grounding).

Of course, the BP spill was raw crude pumping out of the ground, not the pre-processed bitumen you'd see coming from the oil sands.

Hondaracer 10-30-2012 08:58 PM
What's worse raw crude or bitumen

Edit* never mind saw your above post, that's what I figured due to the processing

Do all tankers carry a form of refined oil?

Posted via RS Mobile

Great68 10-30-2012 09:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy (Post 8069061)
I mean, how many major spills along our coastline can you name in the last 30-40 years? Well, there's Exxon Valdez, and then there's.... uhhh.... Exxon Valdez.... uuuhhhh....
If you ask me, it was one spill too many.

I more or less hold the same opinion as you on the new pipeline, but I think you're trivialising what was one of the worst disasters in HISTORY on our coast here.

That one single spill is all we really need to consider.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:33 PM.
Page 3 of 7 12 3 4567
Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net