Well, if you come up with a better way to move crude across the water, I'm sure the world will beat a path to your door... otherwise, tankers are the only option.

The only MORE EFFICIENT way to move oil is by pipeline.

Naptha and/or Benzene is typically the diluent use to reduce the viscosity of crude.

The opinion of some suggest that cleaning up diluted bitumen would be more difficult due to the volatile nature of the additives. As the Naptha and Benzene evaporate the risk of the "bitumen" sinking increases and makes clean up more difficult from both a physical and chemical perspective due to human risk related to inhalation of the volatile chemicals. Unfortunately, there really hasn't been any actual studies to date to truly support this opinion. (At least not that I am aware of...)

With regards to the dangers of Naptha/Benzene, they would be virtually identical to those of gasoline.

It's worth mentioning that all un-refined hydrocarbons will be volatile to some extent or another, no two formations are exactly alike and they will all contain unique hydrocarbon properties.

There is little to support that cleaning up diluted bitumen would be any more difficult than cleaning up light sweet crude, perhaps it would even be easier... But having said that, I don't believe we are very good at cleaning up any type of oil spills... oil and water are a shitty combo.

I'm all for progress etc but based simply on the damage that could be done to some of my favorite places on the globe in and around the BC coast, it isnt worth it for me, places that are OURS would be fucked forever if a major spill happened

places like Desolation sound etc are irreplaceable

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y13...ps3016f13c.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y13...ps659a54fb.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y13...ps9ad04ac6.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y13...ps35bd19ab.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y13...psf6718955.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y13...ps7302155f.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y13...ps16036849.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y13...psb13524c6.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y13...psd5e1b622.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y13...psffc1b87c.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y13...psa32e743a.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y13...ps3bd27c0d.jpg

:facepalm:
Posted via RS Mobile

They should pipe/transport it all through Washington state if they want it so bad.

How was B.C. surviving before the oil sands? The profits of this oil transport will not reach our pockets, only the very few that are in the industry and the phat cats pulling the strings.

Anyone that is for this ticking environmental disaster is only looking to line their own pockets and has no regard for the consequences like our food sources being wiped out and our water tables being poisoned.

If the industry had a spotless record, even then it would not be worth the risk because of natural disasters or because mistakes can simply just happen... but we know this shit has leaked here before and it will again.

In reality Canada is just America's hat and if you think otherwise, you're ignorant.

And again I'd point you to the image on the previous page of the major ocean currents - besides the sheer distance and amount of land between Kitimat and the Sunshine Coast, there's the fact that the prevailing currents would carry any spill there northward.

Wow, where to start on the stupidity of THIS post?

CHINA is the market for this particular pipeline plan. It has nothing to do with the US. Piping the oil to Kitimat is not only the most direct overland route, but connects to a much shorter overall ocean route.

:facepalm:

So say you stop this pipeline... then what? They'll find another route to get the oil to the people who want it... or they'll find another customer for it. The demand for oil isn't going away. The computer you're typing these post on wouldn't exist if it weren't for oil.

:facepalm: :facepalm:

Even if the current was to limit the amount effected, obviously the Eco system of the entire area is effected if there was to be a spill

Also there are areas in and around the port area that are very similar to the areas I had pictures and the fish pic was taken at west coast fishing club which is the northern tip of queen charlottes, regardless of currents that area would be effected
Posted via RS Mobile

:facepalm:

I'm going to weigh in.

One...I'm actually not 100% against it.

Here are my issues:

1. I actually agree with Crusty Clarke that we should get a royalty for it crossing BC.
2. My problem with all of these things, pipelines, tankers and such is when shit goes wrong, the company isn't the one that takes the financial burden. There is no way that even the most financially successful companies in the world could absorb ALL the direct and indirect costs associated with a spill.

At the end of the day, its going to happen. You have an Alberta Prime Minister, and if he has to start re-writing applicable laws to make it happen, that will happen. So he loses the BC vote...big deal, he'll gain in Alberta. His party's view of making a western power house was never "the west" it was Alberta, and that only started when they found oil...before that, they took more money from Canada than they ever contributed.

I disagree with this. I may be wrong, but looking at that map, it looks like the current loops back towards what looks like Washington, BC and the west coast. Also, some ships sail directly to Japan/China and don't travel north hugging the coast of Alaska/Russia.

pipe can move around pretty well without risking the weld or pipe cracking... if they do it above ground the pipe can really move without risking there being an issue... I've heard of the pipes bucking up and down a couple feet when they first go online..

coles

pipe can bend and move

regardless of whether the actual oil reaches into gulf islands etc, the whole eco system gets fucked on the BC coast

Why does it seem like so many people think this is the first pipeline in the world? There's already pipelines in bc.

Yeah, this is the part that's actually funny: if you listen to all the detractors going on about this proposal being the end of the world, you'd think that BC is so far completely free of pipelines and oil tankers.

They also like to give the impression that blocking this pipeline will mean the Tar Sands project will shut down since they won't have anywhere to send their oil :facepalm:

More people should be looking at the Exxon Valdez. However, we should look at ALL the facts surrounding that spill. The people against oil tankers love to talk about how much oil the Valdez released and how much damage it caused the environment. But they also ignore a lot of other information like the construction (The Exxon Valdez was a single hull design, for example), the issues with the crew, malfunctioning equipment that hadn't been repaired, missed inspections and so on. The Exxon Valdez was a disaster waiting to happen that should never have happened if any one of a number of people had simply done their job. The one good thing that came from the Exxon Valdez is it brough a spotlight to these issues and resulted in a lot of changes.

The best example I can think of is automobile safety. If you have a head-on collision in a 1970 Ford you're probably going to die. You have a head on with a 2012 Ford you could walk away with nothing more than a couple bumps or bruises.

Telling people that they will die if they have an accident in their 2012 Ford because lots of people died in their 1970's Fords is ridicuous. So is telling people that modern double-hulled tankers with vastly improved (and stricter) operational procedures pose a similar risk to our shores that the Exxon Valdez (or other tankers) did.

We picture in our heads of when there is contamination that we see thick film of oils on bodies of lakes, rivers, and coastlines... But theres ALOT of water we actually can't see.

I am no expert in this but don't forget about the GROUNDWATER. If there's a spill that seeps through the soil and goes to the groundwater well then... its contaminated. How do you clean up that? Do you just pump out all the water underground? we can't even see it. In my opinion that's the most important issue and a risk to public health. 30% Canadians in BC drink from wells tapping into groundwater in unprotected (open to contamination) aquifers.

Were do you think oil comes from?

groundwater is kept in aquifers while oil is stored in underground " cavities ", they're separate entities.

notsureifsrs

I don't think he's talking about how these two items are "kept/stored" but where they occur in nature. Other than the fact that drilled crude typically exists MUCH DEEPER than groundwater, there's really nothing keeping them separated in nature.

Oil and water mix in nature that's a fact. If an oil spill does happen it's only going to cover a small area. The amount of ground water it may affect will be very small. Also lots of gas stations have had gas leaks and have had contaminated ground. Most times it has been fixed by venting the gas into the air.

I'm not sure how much drilled crude we actually have. Most of the drilling that is happening is so they can get the deep oil sands out. If you actually go up there when it rains the ground is all oily not cuz of any spills but cuz the oil that is in the ground is seeping out.

IMO the easiest way to deal with the tanker issue is to use tug boats to get them through the "bad" areas. Once they are in open seas let them go under their own power.

The actual pipeline issue is really a non issue.

Also in my experience EXXON has learned from their mistakes. They are so paranoid about having any sort of incidents that it makes it really hard for the workers to actually do their job. A good example of how insane it is up there. When we are testing pipe to ensure it will hold pressure we use the same fluid that they use for deicing at the airport. Not sure how much per day gets spilled and spread out over everything. Anything more then a couple liters spilled where we work turns into an incident and people will get fired.

I was talking more generally, rather than about the tar sands specifically. But you're right, in the case of the tar sands, the name itself comes from the fact that the oil is right there at the surface.

AFAIK, that IS the plan. But it's important to never let the facts get in the way of a good protest, I guess.

Thought I'd bump this thread up.

Enbridge spill risk more than 90%, SFU report says - British Columbia - CBC News

TL;DR
-SFU makee report of oil spill risk for proposed Enbridge Pipeline project.
-SFU uses standard US Gov't model
-SFU finds 90% spill risk for Enbridge project
-Enbridges counters viciously saying 90% is way over inflated.

Thoughts? :fullofwin:

It should be noted that the lead in this report is Tom Gunton, who happens to be a very vocal opponent to the Northern Gateway project. Former Environmental Minister or not, I'm not willing to take at full face value what anyone says when they're obviously for or against any sort of project.

B.C. formally rejects proposed Northern Gateway pipeline

Rejected... for now.