Trans Mountain Pipeline - Yay or Nay ?

[whitev70r]

As you know, conflict between Alberta, BC and Feds. As much as I prefer it not to be built, looking at all angles, I'd say Horgan should stand down and let it proceed.

Apparently, some Indigenous groups wants it to go ahead.
Environmentalists red-wash fight against pipeline: First Nation chief | Vancouver Sun

[TjAlmeida]

I believe there are lots of bands that want it to go through, people only hear the nay sayers and never the supporters.

[320icar]

You know we can make poll threads, right?

[twitchyzero]

only if we can slap fat tariffs to the tankers going to china, and BC keeps the pr0fit
a fair bit will probably end up being re-routed to north korea I bet

[DragonChi]

Yeah, I don't know why BC would assume the environmental risk for nothing. The BC spill protection program should not be from tax payer money. Shouldn't Kinder Morgan and the tanker companies be footing the bill for a spill?

Get money from the pipeline
Build offshore windfarms
Fund electric car network
Get off fossil fuel use... the dream. lol.

[underscore]

It's gonna move one way or another. Whether it's in a spiffy new pipeline with loads of engineering or in trains and trucks it's gonna get there, and a well built pipeline is the safest option.

[Spoon]

The Feds have my Yes vote for pipelines. As long as they make it worth my while.

Pay up, Justin Trudeau.

[Traum]

Originally Posted by DragonChi

Yeah, I don't know why BC would assume the environmental risk for nothing. The BC spill protection program should not be from tax payer money. Shouldn't Kinder Morgan and the tanker companies be footing the bill for a spill?

Get money from the pipeline
Build offshore windfarms
Fund electric car network
Get off fossil fuel use... the dream. lol.

^^ This.

As a realist and pragmatist, I see our continual need (and the world's need) for years to come. I also see how rail, truck, and other forms of transport are almost certainly riskier and more prone to environmental disasters than a pipeline would. So in that sense, I think all parties involved, including the people in BC, would be better off from having the pipeline built.

But this does not mean we should just blindly agree to everything Kinder Morgan and that stupid Notley woman demands. From what I can see, the vast majority of the risks are borne by BC, and the bulk of the benefits are reaped by Alberta. So unless BC sees some major assurances to mitigate the risks, and some real economic benefits that would be worth our while to bear that risk, I say we cantinue to give a big FU to KM, AB, and Notley.

As an additional thing to bear in mind, it seems to me that a lot of people are severely underestimating the risk implications of a spill. Any kind of commercial level oil spill is probably a bad thing, but a spill involving diluted bitumen is extra special bad, and that is precisely what the new Trans Mountain pipeline is supposed to carry.

[Ding]

Wouldn't a spill from a pipeline cause way more damage because of the sheer volumes being carried by the pipeline? Whereas rail or trucks are carrying less. Also the likeliness of incident quoted by KM is 16-65% which seems pretty ridiculous and other assessments have quoted higher numbers.

[Traum]

As a layman on this issue, I agree that a spill from a pipeline will cause way more damage than other forms of transportation methods. At the same time, I think the failure rate of such a dramatic event is quite low. I'd expect them to seep / leak instead of outright bursting. Whereas with rail or truck shipments, the damage per payload is lower compared to a pipeline, but the frequency of accidents causing spills are far higher.

It's kind of like how the passenger death rate of airplane accidents are quite high, but the actual frequency of accidents are quite low, so the total number of deaths from airplane accidents are still fairly small. Whereas with vehicular accidents, the death rates from accidents are quite low, but because of the much higher frequency, you end up having higher death tolls from vehicular accidents compared to airplane accidents.

[Mr.Money]

All that fishing i see people Do on revscene is a drip in the bucket...the fishing industy would be fucked if there was a spill for years...


Good for investors the pipeline for the billionaires who can line they're pockets for even more cash,but if any us here who do fishing & such is pretty much screwed...
not only that But i'm pretty BC is getting a small tiny cut of the cash flow since this wasn't really our plan but Alberta's....Fuel prices would still stay the same as they are now...No Help for BC really but hand full of jobs..

[twitchyzero]

I agree, don't expect savings on fuel, if any, passed onto the consumers
Manic! might get another R8 though, jk you know I'm just jealous

[ScizzMoney]

I used to work for a company that responded to spill cleanups and we cleaned up a lot of spills from trains and very few from pipelines. One thing people rarely consider is that trains follow rivers for most of their journey. I'm off to work now but will probably write up more on my experiences with spills.

[Mr.Money]

yeah i heard them talking of moving oil from railway....yikes.... and i might've saw Scizzmoney working....Hehh

[twitchyzero]

does your team cast a wide net and have it act like a filter and sponge?

when it happens out in the open water, i'd imagine it's a much bigger headache

[Great68]

Originally Posted by Traum

As a layman on this issue, I agree that a spill from a pipeline will cause way more damage than other forms of transportation methods.

The Lac Megantic train disaster released more oil than any single pipeline spill in Canadian History.

The events also killed 72 people from fires & explosions and decimated an entire town. That magnitude of destruction doesn't really happen with dilbit & crude pipelines. They don't run directly through town centers like rail lines do.

It's not the pipelines but the oil tankers that we really need to worry about. However I think we can mitigate risks in that regard.

[donk.]

My favourite is the hippies with chains protesting the pipeline.

Guess how those chains are made you idiots.

ps. you will never see them on welfare paycheque day LOL.

[Teriyaki]

What is in it for BC to let it run through our land and putting our coastline at risk?

Our coastline is one of the provinces biggest assets, props to our government to actually stand up to this. There should be some fat royalties being paid to us for allowing Alberta to get their stuff through. A large part of these funds should be funneled into a emergency response and reserve for the incident that may happen in the future so we're "protected".

[whitev70r]

In terms of protection, there is a $1.5B Ocean Protection Plan from the feds linked to the approval of the TMP.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trans-mountain-kindBC Gov't granted er-morgan-climate-change-1.4578732

I'm pretty sure there is some sort of royalties or % for the pipeline to go through BC.

Now AB is passing legislation Bill 12 which gives the Alberta government the ability to retaliate against B.C. over any delays to the expansion by driving up gas prices or restricting shipments of other energy products. This means even higher gas prices at the pumps, projected to be as high as $2/l.

David Eby, BC Attorney General is promising to sue AB in response.

Lawyers are thrilled that this is dragging on and on while our tax dollars are hard at work.

Horgan's ongoing deal with Green Party Weaver hinges on this. Greens are vehemently opposed to TMP and if NDP supports it, Greens will walk away from agreement and NDP gov't would most likely fall.

[originalhypa]

Originally Posted by Teriyaki

What is in it for BC to let it run through our land and putting our coastline at risk?

The world economy is based on oil. When the demand for oil is high, the price of oil goes up. In turn, our economy does well since we're a huge producer of oil for export. Oil is what makes the world go round, whether it's production, transport, or packaging, everything is based on oil.

Our tar sands oil costs on average about $45/barrel to produce. With world oil prices hovering around $65/barrel this leaves us with a net profit of about $20/barrel. Not bad considering that oil sands production has generally been increasing since 2006, peaking at 2.42 million barrels per day in 2016. 2,420,000 x $20 = $48,400,000 profit per day.

The problem is that we can't get this oil to the customers. The cost of shipping via train and truck cuts deeply into the bottom line. West Texas intermediate, which is your typical oil derived from shale and fracking cost about $25/barrel to produce. Combine the lower cost of shipping, because they have a huge network of pipelines makes them much more glamorous to the global market. The thing is, the US produces their own fuel and is busy trying to meet their own demands, let alone what the world needs.

This is where Canada comes in. Our oil sands are second only to Saudi Arabia in volume. A pipeline would be a huge boom for the Canadian energy sector because it allows us to get that oil to the global market. Right now the oil is landlocked.

Everything is based on oil. Once we understand that, it becomes obvious that a pipeline is needed. What I would like to see is major profit sharing to help take the burden off the consumer. I'm tired of paying $1.54/L

[twitchyzero]

helping Canadian energy sector might translate to a better support for federal programs

I doubt you'll see much effect on regional pump prices

[Traum]

Originally Posted by originalhypa

The world economy is based on oil.

[snipped]

Originalhypa, you are not answering Teriyaki's question. All you're saying is, the pipeline will help Canada (and Alberta in particular) as a whole, but that doesn't translate into what BC can get out of it when the bulk of the pipeline pass through BC lands, and the increased port traffic (and thus higher spill risks) are happening right on BC shores.

If AB wants to use BC's resources to make the pipeline happen, that's fine -- just pay up for it properly and make sure BC gets a fair cut of the benefits. All their threats and posturing isn't gonna make anyone in BC more receptive to what AB wants to do.

[Tone Loc]

I think the media is heavily influencing the pipeline debate to make it look like everybody against the pipeline is some tree-hugging hippie, when this is simply not true. As a car guy, and a realist, I know we need oil. Everything is made with it. I am not one of these idiot snowflakes who are protesting oil dependency while wearing clothes, getting to the protest site, and filming with an iPhone or camera that would not have been made had it not been for petroleum-based products.

I am all for the idea of a pipeline, but I think since BC is dealing with all of the risks associated with a spill - especially with respect to our coastline, which as others have said above, is a huge part of BC's economy - we deserve a bigger slice of the pie. Because of that, I am against it "for now". Especially considering how childish Alberta politicians are acting, as if they are children who aren't getting their way. That's not going to make me - or other BC residents on the fence - feel any sympathy. As long as they make it worth BC's while, then I think it should happen.

[ScizzMoney]

A lot of people keep asking what's in it for BC.

I don't think many people actually know how a pipeline or tank farm actually work.

All along the pipeline there will be pump stations or booster houses, usually about 50-75 miles apart depending on the route that it needs to travel. These pump stations need to be staffed and can employ 10-20 people (depending on how remote the station is, some are outfitted with their own little mini-refinery to provide itself with fuel to keep the pumps going).

For the tank farm I assume they already have the new tanks they need built. These also will employ a number of people and they also generate money for the government (This info I don't know first hand, just from what I have been told from a manager at the refinery I work at). Companies can't just build storage tanks in a city and pump them full of oil free of charge. Both BC and likely Burnaby will be getting an influx of cash from having a tank farm there.

People seem think as soon as the pipeline is built all of a sudden the oil sands companies are going to flick a switch and start to produce more oil sand. Trust me when I say this, each mine up here in Fort McMurray is already producing as much as they possibly can. Whether the pipeline is built or not, this bitumen is coming out of the ground and getting to market. I personally would rather have it so more of our oil goes east instead of them importing oil from other countries. It's not like we import a bunch of maple syrup from the US when we can just get the goods from Quebec.

[DragonChi]

I was just on the Kinder Morgan site and I see 12 pump stations listed. So that's roughly 240 new sustainable jobs.

"The Project will add approximately 980 km of new pipeline and reactivate 193 km of existing pipeline. To support the expanded pipeline, new facilities will include 12 new pump stations, 19 new tanks added to existing storage terminals, and three new berths at the Westridge Marine Terminal."

https://www.kindermorgan.com/busines.../projects.aspx
https://www.kindermorgan.com/busines...smountain.aspx

I am for getting the products to a market that will pay more for it, but I'd also like it done in a way that doesn't expose our coast to irreparable damage.