100 L is fuck all especially at a facility.

I'd say I'm more anti-pipeline than not. The extra pipeline capacity is to ship raw bitumen to foreign markets for processing. Currently, over 99% of our bitumen exports go to the USA. While I'm sure Canada would like to expand that, the competition supplying Asian markets is tough (read the report from the NEB and Environment Canada documenting potential markets and associated challenges) and most bitumen transported is expected to go to the US. Since Keystone XL is now moving forward, most bitumen heading stateside will use that pipeline and it's only the bitumen headed to California that would be transported via TransMountain.

Trudeau's government struck a deal with Alberta and Saskatchewan to get them to sign onto the Carbon Tax reform and part of that deal was getting certain pipelines built (TM being one of them). That's why they're all pissed off, which is a legit reason.

Train derailments aren't completely uncommon, I used to have access to the statistics with my old job since I was in a regulatory type of position but I stepped away from that line of work. Oil itself wasn't common in derailments because engineers / conductors know the risks of transporting liquids and how liquids shift weight while in transport. More of the 'spills' were usually sulfur or coke dust (kind of like coal).

One thing about reporting and the fine print of it is that oil contaminated soil isn't considered 'hazardous'. After any spill, the soil gets cleaned up and then mixed around and sampled and sent to a lab for classification. These 99% of the time come back as a 'leachable waste solid - contaminated with oil' or they'll say hydrocarbon if it was a lighter oil. So when prying eyes ask about hazardous spills, by omission they can say they haven't had one in a while, etc.

If anyone ever gets bored enough, find a Class 2 landfill and just observe the amount of dump trucks going into it. If they are hauling soil into the landfill, chances are it came from an oil spill. I responded to a spill years ago where we had 80-120 tridem dump truck loads a day for over a month, and I never heard a sniff about that spill on the news.

Another number I found to compare, the pipeline currently has a throughput of 47,700,000L/day. At 30,000L/truck, the pipeline is moving ~1,600 trucks or ~10 trains worth per day (I assumed ~200 cars per train). One truck crash could release up to 30,000L and one train crash could release up to 5,000,000L.

Train accidents seem fairly uncommon, but most people remember Lac-Megantic. Trucks have smaller volumes but according to https://www.bctrucking.com/industry/safety there's about 1,900 collisions per 10,000 trucks (19%). A lot of those are probably just small fender benders but if they really did replace a pipeline with the equivalent 1,600 trucks/day then it looks like ~300/day would be in some sort of accident. At that rate I doubt it would take long for one of them to be serious enough to have a big spill.

I'd like to honestly see why people are as passionate on the pro-pipeline side as they are. I can understand people who work in the industry, but what benefit does this give the average Canadian? How many jobs will this provide, short term, and long term? Is this information available from an unbiased source?
I read that the show riverdale actually puts more money into the Canadian economy yearly than this pipeline will. I have not confirmed the truth of that, but if thats true, it doesn't seem like so many people should be this passionate about the project, never mind that pouting child Notley calling it the "lifeblood of the Canadian economy."

For me, the biggest reason I want the pipeline is to keep oil out of trains as much as possible. Growing up in the interior of BC, you drive along side trains all the time that also happen to follow rivers everywhere they go. Also, now working in the oil industry and at a place that puts hundreds of thousands of oil downstream I know how safe Canadian pipelines are. Especially safe now that the microscope is hovering over the industry 100% of the time.

The pipeline won't add a whole lot of jobs directly right away (after construction I mean). A big amount of money will go to the province and any private land the pipeline has to go through, as well as the reservations it goes through too. Luckily with the money being public knowledge going to these reserves, it will put pressure on them spending the money well and hopefully it can go to better the future of kids on these reserves and help with education and make them more employable and benefits to society.

By having this pipeline go through it will most certainly increase the price we can sell diluted bitumen to the USA at. Right now, because the USA is the only possible buyer, they pretty well dictate the price that they buy it at. A good portion of the dilbit we send to the USA will still have to be shipped there as there are supply contracts that will have to be upheld. But if there is excess that hasn't been spoken for, having multiple markets able and wanting to use our product is only beneficial for the GDP of Alberta and in turn, Canada.

The 8-13B in direct spending will create a large number of construction and manufacturing jobs over the next three years, most of that money will be spent in Canada.

Long term jobs, I would suggest no more than 50 direct positions, pipelines do not create a large number of long term positions. Designing pipelines to require a significant human input would be foolish, virtually everything is controlled remotely via SCADA.

Almost all major liquid transmission pipelines in Canada are over-subscribed, we do have a need for additional capacity today just to get the available oil to market, even if it is just in Canada or the USA. Having said that, with Enbridge's Line 3 Replacement (It's really an expansion from 300k-900k), TransCanada's Keystone XL (900K), and the TMEP (650K) there will be enough liquids capacity in 5 years to last the next 20-30 worth of production expansion IMO... we won't see any other major liquids pipelines for many years.

We are absolutely financially kneecapped by exporting virtually all of our crude to the USA. Increasing access to global markets will most certainly increase the average price per barrel exported. Who does that benefit? Well it benefits producers that create many short term positions (Construction) and quite a few long term positions (Operations). It also increases the bottom line for many large publicly traded companies, that are largely owned by Canadian investment firms and banks.. this inevitably does result in "trickle down" economics.. how much we really will never know.

The only accurate numbers anyone has is the number of construction jobs that this project will create, the last estimate I saw was around 3B for total project labor costs... that's lot of income for Canadians.

Would the economy survive without the pipeline? Of course it would.

People need to be very aware of the makeup of our economy:

http://www.investorsfriend.com/wp-co...y-industry.jpg

Real estate and finance (Made up mostly of mortgage lending) collectively make up 20% of our economy, in the event that we have a RE melt down, the downturn in housing starts and lack of new mortgage lending will leave us with a massive economic void to fill including lost jobs.

I would suggest that Canada needs to continue supporting the O&G sector until such time that other "exportable" sectors see additional growth (IE: Techa and MFG)

Real estate does not create any real growth as it is confined to your borders, if it can't be sold to a foreign nation, you haven't injected anything into your economy.... all you've likely had are leakages due to importing construction materials.

Canada is heavily regulated, pipelines companies are entirely responsible to cover any/all cleanup costs, Canada has an amazing environmental track record of pipeline performance, and our oil isn't produced by psychotic terrorist support royalty.

To quote the brilliant Sarah Palin (AKA pure fucking moron), "Drill baby drill"

I completely agree with the goals of getting oil out of trucks and trains. The amount of resources wasted and environmental impact of that makes the pipeline seem like it should be praised in that sense. What I worry about it the lack of clarity about the cleanup costs and plans. Again, this may be from my lack of ability to find the info, but it does seem like the politicians and the vehement pro pipeliners don't have real answers which is concerning. I believe if Canada really wants to capitalize financially investments and focus on alternative energies will set canada up for success long term. Not to say that this isn't a good investment in current Canadian economy, but the tunnel vision so many canadians, and our government have towards oil and gas is setting us up for another 68 cent CAD in a few years.

That seems like a common concern, but what are the current cleanup costs and plans for trucks and trains? I can't say I know what any of them are so I'm curious if they're any better.

Only brainwashed fools think Canadians will benefit from this... unless youre low IQ and seek to have you or your family directly benefit from it then I can see the reasoning.

Canada is a state sponsor of terrorism. People in this country will always be squeezed (financially despite all and new resource sales) like cattle to keep out putting profits for Anglo Zionist domination of the world.

Lastly pipelines leak all the time and if/when it bubbles to surface do some get detected... of course if its a massive leak then sure those are obvious.


Que in sudo intellectual to try and refute this, I will provide proof.

It seems like the numbers from a pipeline spill have potential to be much larger. Just some quick searches bring up a spill in Alberta spilling 4.5million L of crude in 2011, and a Burnaby spill due to Kinder morgans current line spilling 760000L.
I'm interested to read more about how KM handled that.

They key to managing a spill and related costs/damage is mitigation, there is a lot of "science" that goes into predicting probability and consequence of failure.

Reducing the consequence of failure is the best method of reducing clean up costs, there is a lot of leak detection equipment installed so that should any sort of anomaly in volumes or flow be detected it can quickly be assessed and isolated etc.

Remember that the public and the pipeline companies have common goals, they both want the oil to stay in the pipe.

The worst case scenario would be an oil tanker failure in the inlet... and at that point it doesn't matter if the oil got there by train or pipeline.

There is risk, of course, but the companies are very aware of spill risks and the potential costs associated with clean ups, loss of income due to service interruption, and increase cost of doing business due to damage to social license.

Now.. having said all that, as an individual that works for a number of pipeline owner users as consultant, I will say that I wish it was anyone other than KMC building this thing... so far I'm not exactly inspired by their management. Although the "boots on the ground" KMC operations people are exceptional.

With respect to renewable/alternative energy, we're not there yet, it's too expensive.. there will come a day for that technology to be widely adopted as the primary means of generating energy but that will only come after petroleum is more expensive than wind/solar etc. Back when I worked at the big E full time I was involved in a number of offshore wind farm projects, the only reason they made ANY money was gov grants and subsidies.. even then they only made like 1% lol.

At 6 million litres lac megantic was bigger than both those spills combined, decimated an entire town and killed 47 people.
The little buffalo spill sounds like a lot at 4.5million litres, it contaminated some forest, but at least there was very little risk to actually hurt anyone.
Trucks and Trains will ALWAYS have a greater risk when it comes to life safety.

The only reason KMC gets any blame in the Burnaby spill is because they allowed the City of Burnaby and their contractor working on the sewer lines (Can't remember the name off top of my head) start digging up the road without KMC rep present and with drawings that weren't 100% accurate (Drawings dating back to the 1950's rare ever are).. sure enough Burnaby's contractor smashed the pipeline with a backhoe like a bunch of baboons.

Burnaby hired the contractor and is responsible to ensure ground disturbance regs are respected including redundant line sweeps etc. It was all finger pointing and blame but ultimately KMC took it on the chin in an attempt to salvage relationship with the city.

Maybe I'm biased but I blame the city for that one, the burden is on the ground disturber to ensure the protection of existing utilities, not the utility owner.

Edit: Example of a large pipeline spill would be Enbridge Line 6 in Michigan, roughly 1M gallons of crude.. but a significant contributor of that spill volume was operations misinterpreting data and assuming that they were seeing something known as column separation causing a false alarm.. They attempted to re-start the line to override automatic shutdown like 4-5 times IIRC + Dismissed a phone call from a resident that called in the spill "Nope, not our line, everything is fine".. guess not.

Cost to clean up was something like 6B, big money and it forever damaged Enbridge's reputation.

There are a lot of remote sectionalizing valves to be installed in the lower mainland with TMEP, I think the longest single section is about 3000M,works out to roughly 14,000 barrels or a little under 600K gallons.

Worst case scenario would be something like 1M gallons spilled directly under the Fraser River, that would be an EXPENSIVE clean up... but make no mistake, they would be able to clean it up.

looks like Ottawa will brute force the project

Morneau to announce Ottawa?s decision on Trans Mountain early Tuesday | Financial Post

Do you have a construction background? KM allowed Burnaby and the contractor to work without the inspector on site? Or the contractor was working on their own without an inspector on site? How is it Burnaby's fault?

The operator thought it was a rock and tried to break it up. this is human error.

"Rough estimates indicate that, out of the total amount of oil it spilled, BP recovered three per cent through skimming, 17 per cent from siphoning at the wellhead, and five per cent from burning. Even so, that’s not much better than the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 when industry recovered an estimated 14 per cent of the oil. Transport Canada admits that it expects only 10 to 15 per cent of a marine oil spill to ever be recovered from open water. "

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...ion-180959783/
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/07/1...Spill-Cleanup/

The order of magnitude for these spills are comparable to 1M gallons.

So are you in favour of ngo's like Rockefeller and tides foundation, who have been consistently paying to derail Canadian oil?
https://corpethics.org/the-tar-sands-campaign/

Vivian Krause: New U.S. funding for the war on Canadian oil | Financial Post

Only a low IQ person buys into that propaganda.

edit
https://www.revscene.net/forums/7102...ml#post8786433

The KMC line that was struck was under Barnett HWY, the City of Burnaby had work planned on a sewer line that was directly adjacent to KMC’s line.

Burnaby had contracted an Engineering firm (RF Binnie IIRC) who then contracted the construction work out to Cusano Contracting.

Via the One-Call tool Burnaby identified that a crossing agreement with KMC was needed and they proceeded to obtain said agreement. KMC as part of the agreement provided what information they had (1950’s design drawings) to the city to help them with planning, KMC also requested that they be notified prior to any ground disturbance work.

Burnaby then performed line locates using a third party contractor.

The day work started Burnaby contacted KMC and notified them that they would start digging at xxAM. KMC notified their operators of the work and one individual planned to visit site that morning.

Digging commenced with a backhoe, what should have happened was a less destructive means of excavation until positive ID could be performed of existing utilities, that didn’t happen, the line was buried over a meter deep and they proceeded to dig too deep and contacted KMC’s line with sufficient force to rupture it.

Burnaby blamed KMC for giving them misleading info (60 year old drawings), nobody overseeing the work had ground disturbance training, they didn’t understand the marks left by survey or the locate company.

That’s my understanding of how the line was struck.

If Kinder Morgan hit a Burnaby sewer line who would you blame?

For what it’s worth, my references to Burnaby include anyone working for the city... I’m not suggesting that city personnel performed any of the tasks above.

I work in Pipeline Construction/Engineering.

The payments were lifted from tides usa 2013 tax return

So this means that corporations are anti-pipe line and that we should be anti-corporate? Putting two and two together means we should be pro pipeline then? this is your conclusion?

Only 40% of leaks are detected
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...ted-technology
https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/...ion_chart2.jpg

They've paid a lot of money to thwart the Canadian oil industry.
I have a sneaking suspicion they aren't doing it for the common good of Canadians

Tell me who profits from the millions of barrels of tar sands oil thats exported everyday. Remember nothing in Canada is nationalized.

If they used the One-Call tool none of Burnaby's utilities would be located for them. They'd receive the as-built drawings and would have to locate them themselves. Once in a while there will be a call where they have trouble finding a city utility where a worker would have to go out and locate it for them. All private utilities are marked out by their own companies except for a few who subcontract their locators.

A job working adjacent to a jet fuel line would take lots of planning and have inspectors dedicated to that job site to be there every day from start to finish. There's no excuse on their end why they started half way through the job knowing the inspector wasn't there.

99% of all utilities are over 3ft deep and aren't given depths because the grade of the ground is changes over time. What they all do give is a measurement from property lines since those rarely ever change. Working beside them they should've been hydro excavating the entire trench to first daylight the pipe and them be able to safely dig around it.

Not sure if you're talking about the contractors employees having ground disturbance training or Burnaby, but I can guarantee you Burnaby employees do especially the manager who was overseeing that job site. If they didn't understand the marks painted on the ground then I really question the skill level of who they hire and put in leadership positions.

Contractors hit Burnaby utilities all the time. Some don't even report it. Those ones do their own ghetto patch job when they can and years later when they're discovered there's a shit storm. To answer your question, Kinder Morgan would be directly responsible. If they have the drawings it's their job to find things. For an example none of the companies will do a physical locate unless asked, instead they'll do their due diligence and just send drawings.



I don't hold KM accountable at all on that one. It was pure negligence from the contractor.