BC's Huge Gamble - Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline controversy [Archive]

jasonturbo

02-19-2012, 12:02 PM

With all due respect OP.. you're a moron, and a typical moron at that.

This Gateway and the Keystone have been demonized by the media.. if you were that concerned about the pipeline you should have been fighting to keep the Port at Kitimat from coming to fruition.

Newsflash, there is already a mess of pipeline infrastructure in North America:

http://vector1media.com/spatialsustain/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/all_pipe.jpg

Two new pipelines is not very significant when you consider the existing infrastructure, and that many of these existing lines are much older and were constructed with poor quality control, lower grade materials (Perhaps good at the time.. 50 years ago), and "backwoods" engineering.

Enbridge's "Horrible" spill record? Can you please elaborate? Why don't you total the number of barrels that have been spilled then compare it to the number of barrels that have been transported by Enbridge.. and then come back and tell us just how horrible of a figure you get.

Pipelines are THE SAFEST and most ENVIROMENTALLY FRIENDLY way to transport oil/gas/etc. If they don't build these pipelines they will ship it via tanker ship, transport trailer, train tankers, etc... all methods are almost certainly going to result in a higher instance of spills and accidents. For example, with train transportation in 2010 there were 4 main-track train collisions and 80 main-track train derailments in Canada. Nevermind using all of these alternative shipping methods consumes far more energy in the long term than the construction of a pipeline would.

The actual construction of the pipeline is IMO very non-invasive to the environment, obviously far less so than a massive increase in land/water traffic to transport the oil.

Having said all that, I would prefer they built a refinery in Canada to create more long term jobs, and then ship the refined products south....

Now back to slamming you for being a shortsighted hippy, if you don't want them to build pipelines or develop the Canadian oil sands, (Can't have one and not the other) that's totally fine. But, you had better be ready to do your part, live in a cave or hut made from plants, don't drive a car, don't buy a car, don't use mass transit, don't buy anything plastic or otherwise derived from hydrocarbons (Which is basically everything) etc.

Disclaimer: I hold a management position with a pipeline company lol. My resume includles the new build portion (370km) of the original Keystone Pipeline. If you really want to talk about the pros and cons of the gateway, let's have an intelligent conversation where your uneducated environmentalist mentality don't get in the way of reality.

EDIT: Oh and Oil from the tar-sands is causing seizures? They live in a trailer park... if anything is giving them seizures it's probably the asbestos in the walls of their trailer.. oh but they probably already sue'd the trailer company and lost.

EDIT# 2: Mr. Seizure also had his brake lines cut by the evil oil companies... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TabdIyvRL7c

MindBomber

02-19-2012, 01:09 PM

Did the Trans Mountain pipeline "Irreparably scar our stunning natural landscapes"?

No, not significantly; the impact of constructing a pipe line is no greater than that of a hydro electric line.

My opposition is specifically grounded in the risk involved with a spill, either along the pipeline or from a tanker. I realize, pipelines are statistically the safest method of transporting oil and gas, as Jason has pointed out. Furthermore, even if a spill were to occur, while it would be significantly and irreparably damaging to the contaminated area, it could be quickly contained. The small area contaminated would take decades or more to recover, but it would be a small area, therefore it is an acceptable risk. I don't like it, but I pick my battles.

A tanker spill is where my issues begin, that could not be quickly contained into a small area and it would contaminate a significant stretch of coast line. The risk is not worth the reward, period.

I may be a hippy, but I'm not short sighted. I realize that my laptop is made out of plastic and I drove my car this morning; I try to minimize the amount of hydrocarbons I consume, but it is impossible to eliminate them entirely without living in a log cabin surrounded by wilderness. Oil and gas development is for now, unfortunately necessary. That however, does not mean I will support development into every region.

I would MUCH rather see refineries built in Alberta. Reduce the carbon foot-print associated with transporting the raw and refined materials, establish long term jobs, the benefits are endless. Refineries are discussed quite often on Lang & O'Leary (I really like that show), they are not very profitable in part as a result of the environmental regulations they must conform too. So, farmers are subsidized, give a small subsidy to a company willing to build a refinery. The increased tax revenue would displace the actual cost of the subsidy anyway.

jasonturbo

02-19-2012, 01:26 PM

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.

twitchyzero

02-19-2012, 01:27 PM

what's the current % of the resources currently transported from Alberta to Asia via pipeline?

from jasonturbo's map there's only two running across BC...are the majority still through trailers/trains?

Or is my question really moot since most of the resources are going Stateside?

jasonturbo

02-19-2012, 01:36 PM

None of the Oil is going to Asia, the existing Kinder-Morgan transports oil to the Chevron Refinery in Burnaby. (If I'm not mistaken)

LiquidTurbo

02-19-2012, 02:13 PM

None of the Oil is going to Asia, the existing Kinder-Morgan transports oil to the Chevron Refinery in Burnaby. (If I'm not mistaken)

It's a switching station, routes to Petrocan refinery as well.

TurboFC3S

02-19-2012, 02:28 PM

Agreed with everything Jasonturbo said.

The migraines / seizures actually can be caused by LONG term asbestos exposure, that combined with more than likely the black mold in their roofs and walls, and booze / drugs use it seems plausible. Their buildings defenatly look like they were built around the time asbestos was booming. Doubtful its from the oil.. I worked at chevron refinery for half a year (7 days a week 10 hrs a day for 3 of those months) and it reaked of raw crude & other chemicals all day, working on pipes, never even got a headache lol.

MindBomber

02-19-2012, 02:30 PM

None of the Oil is going to Asia, the existing Kinder-Morgan transports oil to the Chevron Refinery in Burnaby. (If I'm not mistaken)

Burnaby, as well as Washington State.

There was a spill at the pipeline terminal in Sumas a couple weeks ago, it was not managed well by Kinder-Morgan. The number of people who live in close proximity to the facility reporting illness as a result is to high to be discounted.

http://www.kindermorgan.com/business/canada/KMinCanada.pdf

TurboFC3S

02-19-2012, 02:34 PM

EDIT: Damn MndBomber beat me to it :D

None of the Oil is going to Asia, the existing Kinder-Morgan transports oil to the Chevron Refinery in Burnaby. (If I'm not mistaken)

Burnaby's Chevron refinery in peril? (http://www.burnabynow.com/Burnaby+Chevron+refinery+peril/6087208/story.html)

Looks like Chevron Refinery could soon become mostly a Tank farm, like Petro Can..

Iceman-19

02-19-2012, 02:49 PM

I work at the Suncor Energy mine, where they extract the oil. Bitumin smells, and the chemicals as well. I have never had a migraine, or a seizure, and I have been working around it for over a year. I get oil and diesel on me every day at work. Im healthy. Weird. Guess Im just super human.

jasonturbo

02-19-2012, 03:07 PM

Burnaby, as well as Washington State.

There was a spill at the pipeline terminal in Sumas a couple weeks ago, it was not managed well by Kinder-Morgan. The number of people who live in close proximity to the facility reporting illness as a result is to high to be discounted.

http://www.kindermorgan.com/business/canada/KMinCanada.pdf

"A couple weeks ago... reporting illness" Were these people drinking the oil???

Do these people also get sick when they pour oil in their engine or pump gas gas in their cars? lol

It also says that the containment berm of the facility contained the leak?

Oil spill contained on Sumas Mtn. (http://www.abbotsfordtimes.com/news/spill+contained+Sumas/6054434/story.html)

People bitcing about the fumes from a small leak at a terminal... I can assure you it's nothing compared to the smell of living near a refinery... something I did for most of my life, and many others from Ft. Saskatchewan, Edmonton, Sherwood Park, etc.

Though I will say my Mom always thought the refinery aggrevated her Asthma when the wind blew just right...

MindBomber

02-19-2012, 03:47 PM

"A couple weeks ago... reporting illness" Were these people drinking the oil???

Do these people also get sick when they pour oil in their engine or pump gas gas in their cars? lol

It also says that the containment berm of the facility contained the leak?

Oil spill contained on Sumas Mtn. (http://www.abbotsfordtimes.com/news/spill+contained+Sumas/6054434/story.html)

People bitcing about the fumes from a small leak at a terminal... I can assure you it's nothing compared to the smell of living near a refinery... something I did for most of my life, and many others from Ft. Saskatchewan, Edmonton, Sherwood Park, etc.

Though I will say my Mom always thought the refinery aggrevated her Asthma when the wind blew just right...

Auguston is very close to the Kinder-Morgan Sumas Facility, a 2 minute drive perhaps.

I realize that you, iceman and many others have spent your adult lives working around refineries, but the entire community reporting the same symptoms on the day of the spill is noteworthy. It could be dismissed as mass hysteria, but I don't believe that was the case. I'm certainly no expert, so I can't draw any conclusions short of the empirical evidence.

It wasn't just soccer moms complaining, who are a bit paranoid by nature.

However, residents did not accept that answer, saying they did get sick, with complaints of headaches, nausea, breathing problems and even chest pain. Numerous health-related questions were put to the panel.

Speakers also took exception to the term "nuisance odours" that Kinder Morgan used to describe the issue on the day of the spill.

"If I'm sick and my wife is sick and other residents are sick, then there are health concerns," said Martin Sunderland, an Auguston resident and inspector with Abbotsford Fire Rescue Service. "This is more than an inconvenience. An inconvenience in Auguston is when raccoons get in my garbage. This is more than that."

Auguston resident Tiffany Kafka said she is familiar with the effects of air pollution, having spent time in Mexico City and other places with bad air, but never experienced symptoms like she did on the day of the spill.

"I had a headache and I was nauseated," she said. "I've lived in polluted areas, and haven't had that before."

The topography of Auguston and Sumas is interesting as well, worth mentioning. It's a very steep series of mountains, the Kinder-Morgan facility is a slightly higher elevation than Auguston and buffered on two/three sides by higher mountains. Slightly down hill from Kinder-Morgan, Auguston has a peak rising up sharply behind it. It's possible that the fumes would settle and be trapped in the Auguston area.

Kinder-Morgan contained the leak, then proceeded to meet with the public, but they've been very dismissive regarding the health concerns. There was a not insignificant spill in direct proximity to a populated area, but Kinder-Morgan largely dismissed it, how would they react to a spill in the middle of no where?

Like I said, my opposition is primarily to routing tanker traffic through the Kitimat location. I accept that pipelines are necessary, but it would be nice to see it go through a less pristine and sensitive area or be refined within Alberta, because my faith in oil companies is not all that high with recent incidents like this on my mind.

http://www.abbynews.com/news/139269138.html

MK-EK

02-19-2012, 04:12 PM

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/2760338_700b_v1.jpg

jasonturbo

02-19-2012, 05:13 PM

Kinder-Morgan contained the leak, then proceeded to meet with the public, but they've been very dismissive regarding the health concerns.

Abbotsford News - Kinder Morgan answers questions about Sumas Mountain oil spill (http://www.abbynews.com/news/139269138.html)

This article IMO is not being presented in an impartial fashion, perhaps they should conduct a survey of residents in the area which asks them if they suffered any adverse health conditions as a result of the spill, and what those symptoms were.. actually provide some sort of basic statistics.

The article gives me the impression that the a large number of people fell ill, I can only speculate on the local affected population (Guessing over 1000 people/day-minimum were exposed to the vapors), but when 50 people show up to the meeting, many of which are likely their in support of others who "fell ill" it doesn't provide any credibility to the claims IMO.

If there was really serious health problems associated with the vapors, it shouldn't have been very hard to connect the dots. Did any of these people get admitted to the hospital? I couldn't find a single article which documents someone visiting a doctor with regards to the spill.

From a biological perspective, humans are 99.9% identical, if the vapors make one person sick, it should make 99.9% of everyone else sick. If they breathed in chloroform, they would all be sleeping (or dead), if they breathed in H2S, they would all be sleeping (or dead), if they breathed in xxxxx gas, they would all share xxxxx symptom. (Being realistic, if they have a previously existing condition, it's possible the smaller concentrations of xxxxx gas may affect some people more severely than others)

Just my .02

Don't buy into the media BS, just a few years back the original Keystone was built with barely a "wimper" in the media, now only 4 years later and pipelines are the big story that get all the reads and comments, and thats what media outlets care about.

MG1

02-19-2012, 06:28 PM

A co worker of mine lives in Auguston area. Dude rarely misses work. He was home ill and couldn't figure out why. He found out about the incident later that day.

BTW, jasonturbo, there's no need to be a dickhead toward the OP.

With all due respect........... yeah, right.

With all due respect, you are an asshole! a typical one at that...... but you knew that already.

jasonturbo

02-19-2012, 06:46 PM

BTW, jasonturbo, there's no need to be a dickhead toward the OP.

With all due respect........... yeah, right.

With all due respect, you are an asshole! a typical one at that...... but you knew that already.

Well yes IMO there is a need to be a dickhead when someone is spreading misinformation.

The video, much like the issue with the Kinder Morgan is all about unsubstantiated claims that oil residue and/or vapor is causing a small percentage of a people to fall ill.. or cause people to seizure at random, (Lacking any form or actual educated medical opinion or diagnosis) when they could for all we know.. be ... faking.. it... or suffering from some other unrelated illness.

"It's cloudy today and I have a headache... clouds caused my headache!" Obviously this is an extreme example.. but you get the idea.

MindBomber

02-19-2012, 07:22 PM

Abbotsford News - Kinder Morgan answers questions about Sumas Mountain oil spill (http://www.abbynews.com/news/139269138.html)

This article IMO is not being presented in an impartial fashion, perhaps they should conduct a survey of residents in the area which asks them if they suffered any adverse health conditions as a result of the spill, and what those symptoms were.. actually provide some sort of basic statistics.

I agree, it's not entirely impartial, but it's not terribly biased.

You and I have biases as well.

The article gives me the impression that the a large number of people fell ill, I can only speculate on the local affected population (Guessing over 1000 people/day-minimum were exposed to the vapors), but when 50 people show up to the meeting, many of which are likely their in support of others who "fell ill" it doesn't provide any credibility to the claims IMO.

If there was really serious health problems associated with the vapors, it shouldn't have been very hard to connect the dots. Did any of these people get admitted to the hospital? I couldn't find a single article which documents someone visiting a doctor with regards to the spill.

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.

From a biological perspective, humans are 99.9% identical, if the vapors make one person sick, it should make 99.9% of everyone else sick. If they breathed in chloroform, they would all be sleeping (or dead), if they breathed in H2S, they would all be sleeping (or dead), if they breathed in xxxxx gas, they would all share xxxxx symptom. (Being realistic, if they have a previously existing condition, it's possible the smaller concentrations of xxxxx gas may affect some people more severely than others)

Just my .02

They all shared the same symptoms, as far as I understand.

Great68

02-19-2012, 07:33 PM

jasonturbo

02-19-2012, 08:16 PM

I'm for the pipeline, I just hope that BC gets some MASSIVE royalties for it. Considering we're taking the majority of the enviromental risk.

Like seriously, we should be making Alberta bend over. Because what's their alternative?

Alberta doesn't need an alternative, it's not in "Alberta's" interest, it's in the interest of the Country as a whole. Thats why it's the National Energy Board.. and not the Alberta Energy Board lol.

Don't expect BC to collect any royalties, beyond whatever percentage they already recieve at the Federal level through various taxes, royalties belong to the owner of the mineral rights who in this case would be Alberta.. but don't worry, Alberta basically does not collect royalties in the interest of promoting further constriction lol.

I don't agree that the majority of the risk is held by the province, at least not in the monetary sense, as the Fed gov would likely be providing most if not all of the funds/resources to handle a large scale clean up. But on the flip side, if you consider how it could impact the ecosystem long term, tourism, etc.. it's easy to see the long term indirect costs being quite severe to the province.

Keep in mind, it shouldn't be Alberta's sole responsibility to accept the risks of a large pipeline... the oilsands in Alberta are a major component in Canada's economy.. and without them nearly every single industry would suffer to some extent or another.

Mindbomber, I won't say that it's impossible some people got sick, anything is possible, but until some reliable information comes through in the media I will remain skeptical and hold my position on the matter. But let's just say that the vapors did in fact make some people sick... what's the outcome these affected individuals would like to see? Shut down the terminal? A cash settlement? Jail time for the workers?

Accidents happen, when you say that "Enbridge handled it poorly" I do not agree, their containment system worked as designed and they are communicating with the public.. what more should or can they do? The people who work for oil and gas companies are just normal people, they are not blood sucking vampires, they just want a good life for their families and certainly do not want to have any sort of accident... it doesn't help the oil companies make any money when the oil is pouring all over the ground they worked so hard to recover it from lol.

kunoman1

02-19-2012, 08:42 PM

iEatClams

02-19-2012, 09:50 PM

I dont quite see the dangers of running a pipeline through the wilderness as much as I see the dangers in a ship route. Our coast has lots of little islands and reefs and the such that could potentially cause an oil tanker spill.

Whereas a pipeline, whether buried or suspended/lifted would likely face less dangers - apart from possible breakages/bursts, sabotage and trees falling. However, I'm sure that the oil company and the government will do their best to prevent such accidents from occuring, there must be computer wiring monitoring the flow and mapping breakages in the line so they could be dealt with swifty.

For trees falling on the line, I figure the pipeline SHOULD be build strongly enough in theory.

This is my main concern, the pipeline these days are pretty top notch. I hope this pipeline goes through with the promise that if there is an accident, oil companies can be held accountable.

It's the oil tanker spills that worries me. There's very narrow passages in the Hecate straight and in the winter with all the ice and weather conditions, it's not reasonable to see something bad happening with those giant supertankers. Spilling 40-50 million litres of oil can damage fish, biolife and a whole ecosystem. BC has one of the best marine and rainforest ecosystems and I want it to stay that way.

IMO, I would like to see a limit on the size of tankers and to see smaller vessels go through there. I know Enbridge has said the tankers will be double-hulled and have tugs both front and back, but the weather up there is unpredictable, and I think smaller/medium size tankers should be used.

Lomac

02-19-2012, 10:05 PM

saveth

02-19-2012, 10:06 PM

I'm an avid fisherman and I support the pipelines. We all have natural gas piped to our homes and nobody is complaining about that.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

flagella

02-19-2012, 11:49 PM

I work in this industry so I'm prob too biased to make any comments but you'd be surprised how moronic these environmentalists can be.

MindBomber

02-19-2012, 11:53 PM

Regarding Auguston... here's a theory. It's the cold and flu season right now. Auguston is a small town, likely full of people who know one another and constantly see them whether it's at church, the convenience store, or where ever. Would it be possible that a few people got the flu and managed to pass it along to other people in the town and that it's merely a coincidence a line burst?

I'm not saying there's no corelation between the residents getting sick and a pipeline breaking, but there are other explanations for what may have happened.

I haven't discounted that possibility.

The timing is just very coincidental.

I work in this industry so I'm prob too biased to make any comments but you'd be surprised how moronic these environmentalists can be.

Really, was that comment in any way productive?

At least retort a statement that's been made, before stating that they are moronic.

Mindbomber, I won't say that it's impossible some people got sick, anything is possible, but until some reliable information comes through in the media I will remain skeptical and hold my position on the matter. But let's just say that the vapors did in fact make some people sick... what's the outcome these affected individuals would like to see? Shut down the terminal? A cash settlement? Jail time for the workers?

Accidents happen, when you say that "Enbridge handled it poorly" I do not agree, their containment system worked as designed and they are communicating with the public.. what more should or can they do? The people who work for oil and gas companies are just normal people, they are not blood sucking vampires, they just want a good life for their families and certainly do not want to have any sort of accident... it doesn't help the oil companies make any money when the oil is pouring all over the ground they worked so hard to recover it from lol.

The only outcome I understand the residents desire is a less dismissive attitude by Enbridge towards the health concerns. Mass hysteria or a coincidentally time flu outbreak are certainly possible explanations for the symptoms, but equally probably, especially given the geography, is that the fumes caused the relatively minor discomfort. The CEO did address the residents concerns in the public meeting, but the attitude has overall been very much that it is not possible that the spill and symptoms are related, as one would expect from a large company covering it's back.

A justifiable cash settlement would be insignificantly small, the terminal has been there for sixty years and operates largely unnoticed, the workers certainly do not deserve jail time. I haven't heard calls for any of that, remember, this is Abbotsford, people are generally pretty level headed compared to some cities.

As two intelligent people, both with strong biases, we can certainly agree to disagree.

Iceman-19

02-20-2012, 09:23 AM

Auguston is very close to the Kinder-Morgan Sumas Facility, a 2 minute drive perhaps.

I realize that you, iceman and many others have spent your adult lives working around refineries, but the entire community reporting the same symptoms on the day of the spill is noteworthy. It could be dismissed as mass hysteria, but I don't believe that was the case. I'm certainly no expert, so I can't draw any conclusions short of the empirical evidence.

It wasn't just soccer moms complaining, who are a bit paranoid by nature.

The topography of Auguston and Sumas is interesting as well, worth mentioning. It's a very steep series of mountains, the Kinder-Morgan facility is a slightly higher elevation than Auguston and buffered on two/three sides by higher mountains. Slightly down hill from Kinder-Morgan, Auguston has a peak rising up sharply behind it. It's possible that the fumes would settle and be trapped in the Auguston area.

Kinder-Morgan contained the leak, then proceeded to meet with the public, but they've been very dismissive regarding the health concerns. There was a not insignificant spill in direct proximity to a populated area, but Kinder-Morgan largely dismissed it, how would they react to a spill in the middle of no where?

Like I said, my opposition is primarily to routing tanker traffic through the Kitimat location. I accept that pipelines are necessary, but it would be nice to see it go through a less pristine and sensitive area or be refined within Alberta, because my faith in oil companies is not all that high with recent incidents like this on my mind.

Abbotsford News - Kinder Morgan answers questions about Sumas Mountain oil spill (http://www.abbynews.com/news/139269138.html)

I am not talking about just a couple people, but there are 10s of THOUSANDS of people that work DIRECTLY with the stuff every day. If it got in their drinking water, I could completely believe the problems. Being near a spill? No, don't buy it at all. I have worked with people that have been around in for 15+ years, with no health issues other then getting old.

Iceman-19

02-20-2012, 09:26 AM

MG1

02-20-2012, 12:15 PM

Jason your an asshole for not agreeing with the OP!

No, it's the way he went about it. There's no need to call people morons, idiots, whathaveyou. RS can be a better place. Nuff said.

LiquidTurbo

02-20-2012, 10:31 PM

No, not significantly; the impact of constructing a pipe line is no greater than that of a hydro electric line.

My opposition is specifically grounded in the risk involved with a spill, either along the pipeline or from a tanker. I realize, pipelines are statistically the safest method of transporting oil and gas, as Jason has pointed out. Furthermore, even if a spill were to occur, while it would be significantly and irreparably damaging to the contaminated area, it could be quickly contained. The small area contaminated would take decades or more to recover, but it would be a small area, therefore it is an acceptable risk. I don't like it, but I pick my battles.

A tanker spill is where my issues begin, that could not be quickly contained into a small area and it would contaminate a significant stretch of coast line. The risk is not worth the reward, period.

I may be a hippy, but I'm not short sighted. I realize that my laptop is made out of plastic and I drove my car this morning; I try to minimize the amount of hydrocarbons I consume, but it is impossible to eliminate them entirely without living in a log cabin surrounded by wilderness. Oil and gas development is for now, unfortunately necessary. That however, does not mean I will support development into every region.

I would MUCH rather see refineries built in Alberta. Reduce the carbon foot-print associated with transporting the raw and refined materials, establish long term jobs, the benefits are endless. Refineries are discussed quite often on Lang & O'Leary (I really like that show), they are not very profitable in part as a result of the environmental regulations they must conform too. So, farmers are subsidized, give a small subsidy to a company willing to build a refinery. The increased tax revenue would displace the actual cost of the subsidy anyway.

I think you're backpedalling. I'm pretty sure your original comment was reference to the pipeline and thinking it would scar our landscape, until you realized that is a worthless argument.

Regardless,

A tanker spill is where my issues begin, that could not be quickly contained into a small area and it would contaminate a significant stretch of coast line. The risk is not worth the reward, period.

What if there was no spill, ever? Have you ever contemplated that?

MindBomber

02-20-2012, 10:49 PM

I think you're backpedalling. I'm pretty sure your original comment was reference to the pipeline and thinking it would scar our landscape, until you realized that is a worthless argument.

Regardless,

What if there was no spill, ever? Have you ever contemplated that?

Read my original comment, I didn't reference the pipeline specifically, my statement is grounded in my assumption a spill will happen. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take, considering proponents of the pipeline and Kitimat terminal assume a spill won't happen.

I do not believe that the routing of the pipeline is well conceived, it is passing directly through an especially sensitive eco-system to maximize efficiency at the expensive of the environment. The impact won't be extremely significant from the pipeline, even if there is a spill due the expediency of a shut-off, but it exists and I do not support that. If BC chooses to say, nope, not cool, find a new route, it's not like the oil companies are going to abandon the idea. They'll re-route it through a less sensitive area, at the expense of their own profit margin, which I could really care less about. Due to the relatively minor impact of the pipeline though, I do not make that my primary point of contention, the possibly of a marine oil spill and the resulting damage is my biggest concern.. So...

What if there never was a spill?

Well, that's not how I look at any situation. I assume worst case scenario when analyzing risk, just like the major exploration companies themselves do when establishing the value of assets. The worst case scenario would be a major spill in inclimate weather, the effects would last decades, devastating the eco-system and dependent industries. The risk is not worth the reward, period.

DB2-R81

02-21-2012, 02:15 AM

Alberta doesn't need an alternative, it's not in "Alberta's" interest, it's in the interest of the Country as a whole. Thats why it's the National Energy Board.. and not the Alberta Energy Board lol.

You haven't got a clue, spouting your corporate rhetoric on the befits is repulsive, save it for the bloodsucking shareholders. The average Canadian will gain or benfit nothing from this proposed pipeline.

jasonturbo

02-21-2012, 04:28 AM

You haven't got a clue, spouting your corporate rhetoric on the befits is repulsive, save it for the bloodsucking shareholders. The average Canadian will gain or benfit nothing from this proposed pipeline.

How so? You don't think that the pipeline workers, coating mills, steel mills, fitting mills, machine shops, heavy equipment companies, local towns that will support the labor during construction, permanent operations jobs, and increased oilsands production (And all the jobs and work associated with long term oil production) won't have any effect on the average Canadian?

Maybe you need a lesson in economics, Canada is a resource based economy, and every year the oil sands gets a bigger piece of the pie chart, the people that work in oil and gas (and support industries) do not spend their money buing bitumen.. they spend it on consumer goods, effectively stimulating many other industries.

I don't own a single share in any pipeline company, though I do own shares in oil and gas companies, and why not, people keep buying oil.. I keep making money? What's the problem. Last time I checked capitalism wasn't illegal (yet).

With regards to the "sensitive area" talk, I have seen that no matter where you run the pipeline, you will not be able to satisfy everyone. When they decide on a pipeline route it's not just "the cheapest way", there are many factors that go in to a proposed ROW, and I can assure you that dollar signs are a factor but no more so than being able to locate the pipeline in an area with some basic population and access for operations, consideration with regards to constructability, and most of all ... safety and environmental factors!

If you don't want the pipeline, stop using petroleum products, how can you be against the infrastructure when you contribute to the demand??? (Yes despite the fact that this specific pipeline is primarily for export, much of it will end up being used in consumer goods that will likely be shipped back to NA.)

Soundy

02-21-2012, 07:26 AM

How so? You don't think that the pipeline workers, coating mills, steel mills, fitting mills, machine shops, heavy equipment companies, local towns that will support the labor during construction, permanent operations jobs, and increased oilsands production (And all the jobs and work associated with long term oil production) won't have any effect on the average Canadian?
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:

As I walked along the seashore,
This young boy greeted me.
He was tossing stranded starfish
Back to the deep blue sea.
I said, "Tell me why you bother.
Why waste your time this way?
There's a million stranded starfish.
Does it matter, anyway?"

And he said, "It matters to this one.
It deserves a chance to grow.
It matters to this one.
I can't save them all, I know.
But it matters to this one
I'll return it to the sea.
It matters to this one
And it matters to me."

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.

DasHooch

02-22-2012, 11:19 PM

None of the Oil is going to Asia, the existing Kinder-Morgan transports oil to the Chevron Refinery in Burnaby. (If I'm not mistaken)

Oil goes to whomever pays for it. They 'rent' the capacity of a pipeline to transport it; if the pipeline doesn't reach them, they 'rent' tankers to transport further by ocean. I'd bet my house some crude has made it to Asia through Burnaby.

It doesn't matter if these pipelines get built, it only changes the rental charges. That crude goes all over. These guys just want a bigger piece of the action.

Also, please 'Call Before You Dig'. If more people listened to what the pipeline companies tell them about where is safe to construct, there would be less oil spills landside. I think the only major risk is unstable terrain/earthquakes. Those tankers are coming, same number, just different ports.

I don't mind either way. Keep it in the ground longer and it'll be worth more; but the capacity is already available to ship more now.

Seriously, no one ever offers a solution. Everyone is protesting life. If you don't like it, go tribal. If you crave more of it, promote new nuclear technology, or at least stop protesting increasing Hydro capacity.

twitchyzero

02-23-2012, 12:33 PM

I think the only major risk is unstable terrain/earthquakes.

:okay:

Soundy

02-23-2012, 08:28 PM

I think the only major risk is unstable terrain/earthquakes. Those tankers are coming, same number, just different ports.

... If you crave more of it, promote new nuclear technology...

Anyone catch the recent David Suzuki special on the Japan earthquake? He's on an anti-nuclear tear now... wonder what his alternative power source would be? The only other thing that's seriously viable for most of the world is fossil fuels (be it coal, gas, whatever).

I think he's probably pissed that he can't blame any of it on Global Warming<tm>.

DB2-R81

02-24-2012, 01:41 PM

1) Protecting B.C.’s coast is about protecting B.C. jobs. Right now, more than 45,000 people are permanently employed by B.C.’s coastal seafood and ocean recreation industries. We’re not just talking the fishing fleet, but also processors, anglers and tour operators. Enbridge says its pipeline and tankers project will create 560 jobs in B.C., so we’d be risking 80 jobs for every one we stand to gain. Why would we put the livelihoods of thousands of people at risk just so multinational oil companies can make a quick buck? We need to protect real jobs and the existing livelihoods of tens of thousands of British Columbians who support their families with the coastal economy.

2) Canada’s already got a bad case of Dutch Disease. When a currency becomes tied to the price of a single commodity, such as oil, due to a rapid surge in exports, it frequently causes job losses in the manufacturing sector. When this happens, it’s called Dutch Disease. A recent University of Ottawa study found that Dutch Disease is responsible for 42 per cent of currency-related job losses in Canada between 2002 and 2007 — that works out to about 140,000 jobs lost in Ontario because of the rapid expansion of the oilsands. Every time another oilsands expansion is approved, more jobs are lost in Ontario. Read our blog on Dutch Disease.

3) Exporting raw bitumen exports Canadian jobs. Recent polling shows 84 per cent of Albertans would prefer to see oilsands bitumen refined in their province. Further to that, 81 per cent of Albertans think the government should be taking steps to increase the amount of oilsands upgrading and refining provincially. Even the Alberta Federation of Labour, which represents 29 unions and 145,000 workers, has spoken out against Enbridge’s tankers and pipeline proposal because it would exported unrefined bitumen — and 50,000 high-quality jobs to China. We’re not prescriptive about whether new refineries should be built or where (because we believe local people should make these decisions), but one thing is for sure: it never makes sense to sell the wood and buy back the chair.

4) Half of Canada is reliant on foreign oil. Most of eastern Canada is currently dependent on foreign oil from declining or volatile reserves in the North Sea and the Middle East. If our government really cared about the best interests of Canadians, they’d be at least considering Canadian domestic energy security. Instead, they are selling off our non-renewable resources to foreign oil companies and pushing to allow them to ship it to Asia on oil supertankers through one of the last pristine places on earth.

5) What’s the hurry? As former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed says, why not go slower on oilsands/pipeline expansion and use the oil we have left in the ground wisely? After all, one of Canada’s top investors, the 85-year-old Stephen Jarislowsky, has said: “Long term, I think oil in the ground is a good asset.”

jasonturbo

02-24-2012, 02:42 PM

Oil goes to whomever pays for it. They 'rent' the capacity of a pipeline to transport it; if the pipeline doesn't reach them, they 'rent' tankers to transport further by ocean. I'd bet my house some crude has made it to Asia through Burnaby.

All of our crude oil is sold to North American markets, that is why we are tied to WTI and not Brent Crude.

1) Protecting B.C.’s coast is about protecting B.C. jobs. Right now, more than 45,000 people are permanently employed by B.C.’s coastal seafood and ocean recreation industries. We’re not just talking the fishing fleet, but also processors, anglers and tour operators. Enbridge says its pipeline and tankers project will create 560 jobs in B.C., so we’d be risking 80 jobs for every one we stand to gain. Why would we put the livelihoods of thousands of people at risk just so multinational oil companies can make a quick buck? We need to protect real jobs and the existing livelihoods of tens of thousands of British Columbians who support their families with the coastal economy.

2) Canada’s already got a bad case of Dutch Disease. When a currency becomes tied to the price of a single commodity, such as oil, due to a rapid surge in exports, it frequently causes job losses in the manufacturing sector. When this happens, it’s called Dutch Disease. A recent University of Ottawa study found that Dutch Disease is responsible for 42 per cent of currency-related job losses in Canada between 2002 and 2007 — that works out to about 140,000 jobs lost in Ontario because of the rapid expansion of the oilsands. Every time another oilsands expansion is approved, more jobs are lost in Ontario. Read our blog on Dutch Disease.

3) Exporting raw bitumen exports Canadian jobs. Recent polling shows 84 per cent of Albertans would prefer to see oilsands bitumen refined in their province. Further to that, 81 per cent of Albertans think the government should be taking steps to increase the amount of oilsands upgrading and refining provincially. Even the Alberta Federation of Labour, which represents 29 unions and 145,000 workers, has spoken out against Enbridge’s tankers and pipeline proposal because it would exported unrefined bitumen — and 50,000 high-quality jobs to China. We’re not prescriptive about whether new refineries should be built or where (because we believe local people should make these decisions), but one thing is for sure: it never makes sense to sell the wood and buy back the chair.

4) Half of Canada is reliant on foreign oil. Most of eastern Canada is currently dependent on foreign oil from declining or volatile reserves in the North Sea and the Middle East. If our government really cared about the best interests of Canadians, they’d be at least considering Canadian domestic energy security. Instead, they are selling off our non-renewable resources to foreign oil companies and pushing to allow them to ship it to Asia on oil supertankers through one of the last pristine places on earth.

5) What’s the hurry? As former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed says, why not go slower on oilsands/pipeline expansion and use the oil we have left in the ground wisely? After all, one of Canada’s top investors, the 85-year-old Stephen Jarislowsky, has said: “Long term, I think oil in the ground is a good asset.”

1) The objective of the pipeline is not to create 560 jobs for BC residents, it's just a point of contention for the pipeline being built, a bargaining chip of sorts. In the event of a spill, as there may never be a spill, the spill would likely only impact a small percentage of that 45000 people you mentioned, as the majority of industry and population is far from the port at Kitimat.. and when the tankers would travel to Asia, they would not be travelling South along the coast where you would find most of these people.

2) 140000 Jobs lost due to the oilsands?... well being realistic these would have most certainly been MFG jobs, why don't you talk to the multinational MFG companys who shipped the jobs elsewhere to improve their profit margins? Canada's currency being tied to a commodity, a strong commodity, actually can be good for the Country, for instance it increases the financial security of the country in the eyes of investors, if you remove oil from Canadas economy, do you really think we would have our AAA ratings which allow us to borrow money at very low rates (via bonds, etc). Does it hurt exports, yes, but Canada's exports can hardly compete with the emerging markets... regardless of a sy 10c premium on our dollar due to Oil.

3) I wish they would ship more refined products out of the country, but at the same time, the key right now is to attract investment to develop the Oilsands. It is possible in the future for the Gov to crank up royalties and impose taxes for shipping raw bitumen out of the country... don't be surprised when this happens in XX years. Building refineries is very expensive and time consuming, even if they started building additional refineries ASAP we would not have anywhere near the refining capacity in Canada for the next two decades with the amount of oil being produced in the oilsands. Also with the concern you mentioned for the pristine coastline of BC, if you did build all these refinerys you would likely get a lot of negative feedback on emmisions from the enviro-crowd, and I dont blame them. Why not make use of the refineries south of the border, no point in using a retarded amount of resources to build a new refinery here when there are existing ones stateside that are sitting there a little to no production.

4) Importing oil is at the discretion of the company who sells it here domestically, if they prefer to import it from the Middle East, that's up to them... not the Gov... unless of course a socialist regime takes over.

5) Well, perhaps oil in the ground is a good asset for the time being, god forbid we ever get away from our addiciton to oil, you may regret not having sold it when you could have? Also, if you remove oilsands development from the Canadian economy over the last 10 years... how do you think that would have impacted the economy?

had to write this in a rush... but I think you present a fairly biassed perspective.

Edit: Was rushing when I wrote this, but just to touch on the importing of oil into Canada, remember the pipeline and the oilsands are not responsible for NAFTA, and in 1994 when this superseded the previous agreement, the then in-power Liberal party should have done a better job negotiationg the conditions related to energy...

Soundy

02-24-2012, 04:45 PM

1) Protecting B.C.’s coast is about protecting B.C. jobs. Right now, more than 45,000 people are permanently employed by B.C.’s coastal seafood and ocean recreation industries. We’re not just talking the fishing fleet, but also processors, anglers and tour operators. Enbridge says its pipeline and tankers project will create 560 jobs in B.C., so we’d be risking 80 jobs for every one we stand to gain. Why would we put the livelihoods of thousands of people at risk just so multinational oil companies can make a quick buck? We need to protect real jobs and the existing livelihoods of tens of thousands of British Columbians who support their families with the coastal economy.
You know, not to belittle the fact that environmental damage from a POTENTIAL (not CERTAIN) spill is a terrible thing all around... but when bullshit numbers like this get thrown around, it does nothing but damage the credibility of those abusing them.

Jason is absolutely correct - look at BC's coast on Google Earth and then look at what a tiny fraction of a percent would actually be affected by a spill in that channel. Opponents are talking like even the smallest leakage would destroy every inch of coastline from Puget Sound to Glacier Bay.

3) Exporting raw bitumen exports Canadian jobs. Recent polling shows 84 per cent of Albertans would prefer to see oilsands bitumen refined in their province. Further to that, 81 per cent of Albertans think the government should be taking steps to increase the amount of oilsands upgrading and refining provincially. Even the Alberta Federation of Labour, which represents 29 unions and 145,000 workers, has spoken out against Enbridge’s tankers and pipeline proposal because it would exported unrefined bitumen — and 50,000 high-quality jobs to China. We’re not prescriptive about whether new refineries should be built or where (because we believe local people should make these decisions), but one thing is for sure: it never makes sense to sell the wood and buy back the chair.
Of course it would be nice to do all the refining here and ship the processed fuels out... but what if your potential customer says, "we don't want the processed fuels, we want the raw material"? Are you going to just sit on it all out of spite? If you have a customer itching to buy your product, then you sell them the product that they want... you don't say, "you can't have it because we want to do more work on it first." It's the same issue the lumber industry is having right now - are you going to sacrifice logging jobs out of spite because the mills aren't getting work too? Try telling a logger he's got to go out of work because we're only going to sell cut wood that nobody is willing to buy.

Both are classic examples of cutting off one's nose despite one's face.

goo3

02-25-2012, 01:26 AM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/Supply_and_demand_network_%28en%29.png/800px-Supply_and_demand_network_%28en%29.png

it never makes sense to sell the wood and buy back the chair

It happens all the time. You make it sound like we're getting screwed. Everybody is a cog in the wheel looking for a piece of the pie.

There's nothing stopping you from making the chair. You just have to do it better than the other guys. It'd better be a great chair, though. Don't expect to sell it at Ikea.

A little OT: Chances are, if you hear something coming from a politician or someone who's a little too political, they are probably lying to you. That or they've been drinking their own piss for far too long. Don't let that be you.

DB2-R81

03-02-2012, 02:50 PM

MAP: Length of 1989 Exxon Valdez spill overlaid on the BC coastline.

Twitter (http://twitter.com/#!/CanadaForests/status/175317204169003010/photo/1/large)

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

^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.
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

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

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

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.
: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

Soundy

10-30-2012, 05:39 PM

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.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/9093_10152230704000607_786319665_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

twitchyzero

10-30-2012, 07:54 PM

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

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

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 (http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/menu-4100.htm)

iEatClams

10-30-2012, 08:48 PM

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

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.

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...

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.

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/protection/geology-processes/images/clip_image002temp_000_000.jpg

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

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

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.

Soundy

10-30-2012, 09:21 PM

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.

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.

jasonturbo

10-30-2012, 09:49 PM

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.

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.

Hondaracer

10-30-2012, 10:10 PM

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/y136/sniperslayer/dsfsdfds_zps3016f13c.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y136/sniperslayer/DSCN0722_zps659a54fb.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y136/sniperslayer/DSCN0801_zps9ad04ac6.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y136/sniperslayer/DSCN0808_zps35bd19ab.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y136/sniperslayer/DSCN0825_zpsf6718955.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y136/sniperslayer/DSCN0830_zps7302155f.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y136/sniperslayer/DSCN0835_zps16036849.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y136/sniperslayer/DSCN0908_zpsb13524c6.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y136/sniperslayer/DSCN0909_zpsd5e1b622.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y136/sniperslayer/DSC02910_zpsffc1b87c.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y136/sniperslayer/DSC03001_zpsa32e743a.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y136/sniperslayer/DSC03936_zps3bd27c0d.jpg

LiquidTurbo

10-30-2012, 10:58 PM

:facepalm:
Posted via RS Mobile

CharlesInCharge

10-30-2012, 11:42 PM

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.

Soundy

10-31-2012, 07:37 AM

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
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.

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

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.
:facepalm:

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.
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.

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

Hondaracer

10-31-2012, 09:05 AM

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

CharlesInCharge

10-31-2012, 10:55 AM

.
:facepalm:

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.
This is not Nigeria for us to be desperate for foreign oil sales and pollute our lands in return, no matter who the oil buyer is. And yes this has everything to do with the U.S., take it through their land if our rulers want to sell it from this side so bad.
Piping the oil to Kitimat is not only the most direct overland route, but connects to a much shorter overall ocean route.
Right, right over precious, priceless lands which isnt worth risking such a route.

So say you stop this pipeline...
I say stop it all expect for the very few supplies that are needed... lowering the risk 10000 fold.

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.
It wont make a difference to us who buys it or if it spills in someone elses backyard.. problem solved!

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.
The demand is not going to go away yes, and because big money is involved is why people are being manipulated through the media to accept this and the little coin that might be in it for you, if you're to benefit, and your resulting success in life means nothing to everyone else living here.

Your laptop made of oil example could be compared to the fact that people need electricity and nuclear plants like the one in Washington state, supplies this need for people... does that mean its okay for us to put one in our city because everyone needs electricity?

Gridlock

10-31-2012, 11:14 AM

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.

iEatClams

10-31-2012, 05:14 PM

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.

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.

penner2k

11-08-2012, 07:39 PM

Hondaracer

11-08-2012, 08:19 PM

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.

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

RRxtar

11-08-2012, 08:48 PM

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

Soundy

11-08-2012, 09:18 PM

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:

dangonay

11-08-2012, 09:53 PM

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.
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.

vudooca

11-09-2012, 01:13 AM

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.

Manic!

11-09-2012, 01:40 AM

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?

H.Specter

11-09-2012, 09:12 AM

Were do you think oil comes from?

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

notsureifsrs

Soundy

11-09-2012, 09:46 AM

Manic!

11-09-2012, 11:16 AM

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

notsureifsrs

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.

penner2k

11-09-2012, 11:45 AM

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.

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.

Soundy

11-11-2012, 04:10 PM

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.
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.

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

melloman

05-03-2013, 01:44 PM

Lomac

05-03-2013, 01:55 PM

Thought I'd bump this thread up.

Enbridge spill risk more than 90%, SFU report says - British Columbia - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/05/02/bc-enbridge-oil-spill-risk-sfu-report.html)

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.

sonick

05-31-2013, 10:30 AM

B.C. formally rejects proposed Northern Gateway pipeline (http://www.vancouversun.com/formally+rejects+proposed+Northern+Gateway+pipelin e/8462046/story.html)

Rejected... for now.

GabAlmighty

05-31-2013, 10:57 AM

It'll get built.

Geoc

06-01-2013, 10:10 AM

How is this pipeline even a gamble? I've always thought gambling has a payout equivalent to it's risk. This is more like a charity.

iEatClams

06-01-2013, 10:59 AM

I'm glad it's been rejected for now. Enbridge needs to have better plans and funds to prepare for any spills.

google or check out Enbridge oil spill, or Dilbit Kalamazoo oil spill and you'll see how poorly they handled that spill. By poorly, I mean they literally fcked up big time.

Overall I'm pro-northern gateway once we get more money and they have a better response plan, but I'm against the Kinder Morgan twinning. I don't want to see 2x the amount of tankers when looking down on grouse mountain or at kits beach, Vancouver is known for it's natural landscape, and I want it to be kept that way.

Gridlock

06-01-2013, 11:00 AM

How is this pipeline even a gamble? I've always thought gambling has a payout equivalent to it's risk. This is more like a charity.

How many people are employed by the oil industry in Alberta? Lots. Direct, and even more indirect.

Christy Clark was talking in the election about not wanting to have our kids go to Alberta to work.

Well, at least its an option.

The pipeline will go through because we basically need it to.

godwin

06-23-2013, 09:32 AM

$70k per band?? no wonder they won't bite.. Enbridge, try 70k / person! That's still short of the 100k Indian casino pays band members in the States. I heard a quote from a First Nations prof once, "The white man can buy Manhattan for a few beads, but we are not stupid". 70k / band is insulting.

Northern Gateway equity offer would give First Nations about $70,000 a year

BY DENE MOORE, THE CANADIAN PRESS JUNE 23, 2013 10:14 AM

Protestors against Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline gather outside the Joint Review final argument hearings in Terrace, B.C., on Monday June 17, 2013. The Joint Review Panel on the Northern Gateway pipeline sits through June 28.
Photograph by: Robin Rowland , THE CANADIAN PRESS
TERRACE, B.C. — The equity offer from Northern Gateway to aboriginal groups along the route of a controversial oil pipeline would amount to an average of about $70,000 a year for the bands, which would be obliged to borrow the millions of dollars needed to purchase equity from Calgary-based Enbridge itself.

It’s a far cry from the path out of poverty the company claims, say some aboriginal leaders, who are among the minority who have rejected the offer.

“Only minimal economic benefits were offered,” Chief Rose Laboucan, the six-term chief of the Driftpile Cree Nation northwest of Edmonton, told the federal panel assessing the project during final arguments about the controversial project.

Laboucan said the band sat down to negotiate with Calgary-based Enbridge but would not sign the equity agreement “for ethical reasons.”

“I remember being in that room and having that binder: ‘Here is the agreement. Take it or leave it.’ Many nations agreed, but we didn’t,” she said.

Aboriginal buy-in is a major road block for the $6-billion project that would deliver heavy oil from just outside Edmonton to a tanker port in Kitimat, B.C.

Northern Gateway has offered aboriginal groups along the route the opportunity to buy into a 10 per cent equity stake in the pipeline. A copy of the offer was obtained by The Canadian Press.

A legal assessment for one of the bands compiled in 2011 and also obtained by The Canadian Press, said the anticipated annual average net income — after repayment of the loans with one per cent interest for Enbridge over and above the rate at which the company borrows the funds — would be $70,500 a year.

Enbridge spokesman Ivan Giesbrecht said in an email response for comment the 2011 document would indicate “a starting point, rather than a finalized, executed agreement between Enbridge and one of our Aboriginal equity partners.”

“A document issued in 2011 would have been augmented by further dialogue and understandings between Enbridge and Aboriginal groups along the right of way,” he said.

Giesbrecht said that as the pipeline route was determined, the company established a 160-kilometre-wide corridor for aboriginal engagement and consultation. As the process has unfolded, bands with traditional territories in the corridor have been identified and added.

Northern Gateway has said 60 per cent of aboriginal groups along the pipeline route have signed on, but the Haida Nation told the panel last week that 18 equity packages were offered to Alberta aboriginal groups and 15 signed up. In B.C., 27 offers were made and 11 First Nations signed up.

It’s more than the two bands that have acknowledged the agreements, but less than the 60 per cent claimed by Enbridge.

Giesbrecht argued the benefits go beyond equity, amounting to $400 million in employment, procurement and joint venture opportunities over three years of construction, but it’s not enough ever for some supporters of the project.

“Ten per cent is totally inadequate,” said Brian Lee Crowley, managing director of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, an Ottawa-based public policy think tank.

“You split that up amongst the dozens of First Nations along the pipeline route and it’s just not enough, in my view, to make the project attractive or to outweigh some of the other objections.”

The Institute published a report last month trying to lay out a path forward for project worth billions of dollars for government coffers.

It recommended a higher portion of equity to be split among the bands, in addition to a general corridor benefit agreement and individual agreements that would include supply and service deals.

The institute suggested, among other things, that the federal government designate the pipeline corridor land as reserves, giving First Nations the ability to raise tax revenues and fees from allowing the right-of-way.

It also recommended the Alberta and federal governments provide fully repayable loans to First Nations to buy into the equity arrangement.

“By the time you get property taxes and various other revenue flows out of it, you’re starting to put together a fairly attractive package,” Crowley said.

Chief Herb Arcand, of the Alexander First Nation west of Edmonton, said his community has signed on, despite concerns about the lack of consultation from the provincial and federal governments.

“Business is business,” Arcand told the panel, saying the deal will generate long-term benefits for the band.

Final hearings on the project are expected to wrap up Monday.

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Read more: Northern Gateway equity offer would give First Nations about $70,000 a year (http://www.vancouversun.com/business/resources/Northern+Gateway+equity+offer+would+give+First+Nat ions/8567027/story.html#ixzz2X3sSWGII)

adambomb

12-19-2013, 04:43 PM

It's been a while. Let's poke this bees nest again... :devil:

CALGARY (NEWS1130) – A review panel is recommending that the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline that would connect the Alberta oilsands to tankers on the BC coast go ahead.

But the panel has attached 209 conditions to the project.

The final decision rests with the federal government, which has roughly six months to respond to the report.

:drama:

Five conditions laid out by the Liberals for pipeline approval

1. Successful completion of the environmental review process.

2. World-leading marine oil spill response, prevention and recovery systems for BC’s coastline and ocean to manage and mitigate the risks and cost of heavy oil pipelines and shipments.

3. World-leading practices for land oil-spill prevention, response and recovery systems to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines.

4. Legal requirements regarding Aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed, and First Nations are provided with the opportunities, information and resources necessary to participate in and benefit from a heavy oil project.

5. British Columbia receives a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits of a proposed heavy oil project that reflects the level and nature of the risk borne by the province, the environment and taxpayers

NEB approves Northern Gateway Pipeline with conditions | News1130 (http://www.news1130.com/2013/12/19/neb-approves-northern-gateway-pipeline-with-conditions/)

tool001

12-19-2013, 04:51 PM

anybody seen ads, saying if thr is a spill by tankers,, gas companies will only pay upto $ 1.4 billion (MAX) cleanup cost. if it goes over Canadian govt will be on the hook for the rest.

if true,, doesn't seem right...

First Nations "Go Undercover" to Ask World's Largest Oil Tanker Companies Who's Responsible for Spill Clean-Up Costs in Canada | Coastal (http://coastalfirstnations.ca/news-release/october-8-2013-1010am)

Hondaracer

12-19-2013, 05:04 PM

#progress
Posted via RS Mobile

Jmac

12-19-2013, 05:23 PM

Let me get this straight ... We're taking most of the risk and getting a whopping 1.5% of the money?

Fucking Christy Clark ...

"Fuck Me" - Eric Cartman "South Park" - YouTube

Manic!

12-19-2013, 06:39 PM

Let me get this straight ... We're taking most of the risk and getting a whopping 1.5% of the money?

Fucking Christy Clark ...

"Fuck Me" - Eric Cartman "South Park" - YouTube (http://youtu.be/_KqqRPvM_Sw)

But we are getting 1.5% for doing almost nothing.

If we can land a man on the moon transporting liquid from one part of the country to the other safely should not be that hard.

MasonJar

12-19-2013, 06:49 PM

If we can land a man on the moon transporting liquid from one part of the country to the other safely should not be that hard.

19568

19569

sdubfid

12-19-2013, 06:51 PM

Washington group should build a refinery. Give BC lots of jobs and eliminate crude transport in the ocean. Win for the economy and environment.

Manic!

12-19-2013, 06:59 PM

19568

19569

The space shuttle was designed in the 60's and 70's the first launch was 81. Technology has advanced in the last 30 plus years.

MasonJar

12-19-2013, 07:24 PM

My point is that when infrastructure, regardless of age, fails...the results can be catastrophic.

Besides this, I also take issue with having to watch months and months of commercials convincing me this shit was cool when it didn't matter what my opinion was anyway.

I am looking forward to 2015. This country needs a change.

Hondaracer

12-19-2013, 07:36 PM

the only worry should really be a tanker leaking oil

realistically in the big picture i get a pretty big lol at all the concern over the pipeline itself leaking or rupturing somewhere along the track

its no big deal to dig up BILLIONS of tonnes of earth to harvest the oil out of it, and it's no big deal to pump BILLIONS of litres of steam into the earth to liquify said oil, yet OH NOES! 10,000 litres spilled out onto the ground it came out of!

lol.. it's just like all the people i know that work in the oil sands, especially the "environmental" and reclamation people

so say an excavator is rolling along and randomly a hydaulic line blows pumping a few gallons of fluid onto the ground before the operator shuts er' down. That few gallons of hydro fluid on the ground is an absolute -EMERGENCY- like sound the alarm get the environmental crew down there, rope off the area, remove and bin up all that contaminated ground, file a huge report, drug test the operator

So, let me get this straight... a few gallons of hydro fluid essentially shuts down that portion of the site, yet litterally RAPING the ground they are walking on, both surface and below, building huge emission producing upgraders/refineries, and pumping talings ponds which will disinigrate bone in minutes IS ACCEPTABLE??? LOL!

it's fucked, so just let er' happen baby!

Jmac

12-19-2013, 07:41 PM

But we are getting 1.5% for doing almost nothing.

If we can land a man on the moon transporting liquid from one part of the country to the other safely should not be that hard. We're doing nothing aside from providing 90% of the land and essentially taking all of the risk should something go wrong.

CRS

12-19-2013, 09:33 PM

We're doing nothing aside from providing 90% of the land and essentially taking all of the risk should something go wrong.

And you know the contract is going to go to the lowest bidder too.

Manic!

12-19-2013, 10:24 PM

We're doing nothing aside from providing 90% of the land and essentially taking all of the risk should something go wrong.

If we don't want to provide our land they don't have to provide their oil. They could just tell us to screw off and get our own.

FYI: we have had pipelines with oil comping to B.C. from the 50's. It's nothing new. Also spilling gas or oil on land is not a big deal.

1990TSI

12-19-2013, 11:00 PM

spilling gas/oil through a pipeline is less likely than letting CN or *race* *bought class 1 license* truck drivers deliver the same stuff.

if we don't want it, it'll go another route.

let's take advantage of the situation and build the damn pipeline.

MasonJar

12-19-2013, 11:06 PM

Also spilling gas or oil on land is not a big deal.

ummm....

Manic!

12-19-2013, 11:20 PM

ummm....

Every drive by a gas station open or closed down and see white pipes sticking up from the ground? That's because there was a leak. So now they are venting the gas from the ground to the air. Also where does oil come from?

SoNaRWaVe

12-20-2013, 12:00 AM

uh, wrong comparison here. the leaks from gas stations are slow from the aging tanks. that itself takes between 3-5 years to remediate the soil. its some what contained within the property of the gas station.

you're talking about a MASSIVE oil burst from one of the pipes, and hopefully no more at the same time. the amount of oil soaking into the ground is exponentially worst. the clean up is huge and costly. just look at BP for example.

by the time crews get in there to even do survey of the damage, i can't even imagine the amount of oil thats been soaked and how far deep it might have went already.

godwin

12-20-2013, 12:11 AM

Yukon already wants the pipeline to go through their land, then back down to BC.

The NEB report is just the start of the discussions.. it will be a while for everything to settle. I don't expect them to get everyone onside until at least the next election cycle.

It is quite simple.. if the Gov can get the First Nations politicians on side (especially the ones in BC), then the pipeline will get built. The problem is it is a huge can of worms with the treaties and honestly this Government hasn't cultivate a good relationship with the First Nations.

Yes we have pipelines since the 50s.. but now the populace is more NIMBY and are "more informed".

Actually the pipeline you are talking about from the 50s is the Kinder Morgan one. They are facing the same expansion issues too (Remember that flip flop cost Adrian Dix the election).. and the one to the airport that the mayor of Richmond doesn't want.. speaking of biting the hand that feeds Richmond... One tipped over and flaming tanker truck tapped by a Richmond C-Lai with Darth Vader mask while enroute to the Airport will solve that argument though.

If we don't want to provide our land they don't have to provide their oil. They could just tell us to screw off and get our own.

FYI: we have had pipelines with oil comping to B.C. from the 50's.

MasonJar

12-20-2013, 12:18 AM

Every drive by a gas station open or closed down and see white pipes sticking up from the ground? That's because there was a leak. So now they are venting the gas from the ground to the air. Also where does oil come from?

So what you are saying here is that really this is just Mother Nature giving back to herself?

I guess you would call this a little "self pleasure" then?

Barnet Highway Oil Spill - July 24, 2007 - YouTube

Manic!

12-20-2013, 02:28 AM

So what you are saying here is that really this is just Mother Nature giving back to herself?

I guess you would call this a little "self pleasure" then?

Barnet Highway Oil Spill - July 24, 2007 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIYjIitKnKk)

So what was the environmental impact of that?

Hondaracer

12-20-2013, 05:40 AM

MasonJar

12-20-2013, 08:45 AM

So what was the environmental impact of that?

Crude oil from the punctured Westridge Pipeline sprayed about 12 to 15 m into the air for approximately 25 minutes. Fifty homes and properties as well as a section of the Barnet Highway were affected by the occurrence. The crude oil seeped into the surrounding soil, storm drains, and sewer lines. The Barnet Highway was closed for several days. Moving through the storm drain system, the crude oil eventually reached the marine waters of Burrard Inlet where it began to spread further into the inlet through wind and tide action. Burrard Inlet's marine environment and approximately 1200 m of shoreline were affected by the crude oil spill. A number of shore birds were contaminated after coming into contact with the oil.

KMC established a unified command, with the British Columbia Ministry of Environment as the provincial member and the NEB as the federal member, to coordinate the response efforts utilizing an incident command system. The environmental clean-up was handled by KMC with regulatory overview from a stakeholder group. Some members of the stakeholder group were dispatched during the response and initial remediation efforts to address specific functions including waste management issues and shoreline clean-up and assessment. Other contractors and agencies worked on the clean-up and associated response activities for both land and water.

As of January 2009, the clean-up work on the public infrastructure was ongoing. The stakeholder group was still actively monitoring remediation work and not all remediation targets had been met. The contaminated soil surrounding the repaired Westridge Pipeline was removed and confirmatory samples were taken. The area was backfilled to grade and the road was restored throughout the area.

The stakeholder group was continuing to work with KMC in the development of final clean-up criteria specific to those areas affected by the release. In addition to the application of the most appropriate guideline (federal, provincial, or municipal), KMC conducted a literature review to identify levels of contaminants of concern that would be expected in Burrard Inlet before the release and to provide guidance for deriving clean-up targets.

Source: Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Pipeline Investigation Report P07H0040 (http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/pipeline/2007/p07h0040/p07h0040.asp)

You can also read more here: Environmental Emergency Management Program - Burnaby Oil Spill (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/eemp/incidents/2007/burnaby_oil_spill_07.htm)

Soundy

12-20-2013, 09:37 AM

One tipped over and flaming tanker truck tapped by a Richmond C-Lai with Darth Vader mask while enroute to the Airport will solve that argument though.

:lawl:

Soundy

12-20-2013, 09:48 AM

We're doing nothing aside from providing 90% of the land
:suspicious:

http://investnorthwestbc.ca/uploads/images/Enbridge/Photo1.jpg

...and essentially taking all of the risk should something go wrong.
How so? There's no scenario where this gets approved by ANY level of government that doesn't make Enbridge 100% responsible for cleanup costs of a pipeline spill.

Where the big question lies is with responsibility for tanker spills, as technically once it's out of the pipeline, it's not Enbridge's problem any more. The push is to make them SIGN ON for most or all of that responsibility.

jasonturbo

12-20-2013, 10:09 AM

Source: Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Pipeline Investigation Report P07H0040 (http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/pipeline/2007/p07h0040/p07h0040.asp)

You can also read more here: Environmental Emergency Management Program - Burnaby Oil Spill (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/eemp/incidents/2007/burnaby_oil_spill_07.htm)

That pipeline was very safe until a bunch of apes decided to dig it up with an excavator. How the engineering firm and contractor weren't deemed negligent in this will forever be something I do not understand.

Thankfully you liberal folks can now use this to bash "unsafe" pipelines for the rest of eternity.

Siiiiighhhh...

Hondaracer

12-20-2013, 10:10 AM

The bottom line is you either build the pipe line and sell oil to the east for full price

Or you build one to the states and sell the oil for a quarter of the price
Posted via RS Mobile

MasonJar

12-20-2013, 10:28 AM

I should be clear....I am not 100% against these pipelines. There is risk with every reward and these pipeline have the potential to bring huge rewards to the province. I just don't think our risk is worth the reward at this point.

We keep hearing that this will "bring jobs to BC", but how? how many? how will this effect our oil and gas prices? how will this revenue help BC? where will the money be going?

jasonturbo

12-20-2013, 10:37 AM

We keep hearing that this will "bring jobs to BC", but how? how many? how will this effect our oil and gas prices? how will this revenue help BC? where will the money be going?

This benefits all of Canada signigicantly from a financial perspective in the short and long term. You were able to locate pipeline rupture investigation reports on the interwebz, surely you can locate info on the financial benefits this pipeline offers to Canadians... or maybe you just don't want to?

godwin

12-20-2013, 10:43 AM

I think the question is whether 1 billion in liability is enough. I would like to hear some comments from real actuary on that.

Marine time insurance and liability is also missing from the discussion.

Honestly they should just build the damn thing to end up Prince Rupert. Cheap asses want to save money on extra 200km of pipeline.

:suspicious:

How so? There's no scenario where this gets approved by ANY level of government that doesn't make Enbridge 100% responsible for cleanup costs of a pipeline spill.

Where the big question lies is with responsibility for tanker spills, as technically once it's out of the pipeline, it's not Enbridge's problem any more. The push is to make them SIGN ON for most or all of that responsibility.

MasonJar

12-20-2013, 10:47 AM

Straight from their website:

-With a capital cost of $6.5 billion, Northern Gateway will create over 3,000 construction jobs and 560 long-term jobs here in B.C. The $32 million per year earned will benefit individual families and communities. Property tax revenues will increase by $36 million annually. [Are these contracts going to be awards to local companies or to the lowest bidder?]

-Northern Gateway will generate $1.2 billion in tax revenue for British Columbia and $4.3 billion in labour-related income over the next 30 years. Over the same time period, the project will contribute $270 billion to Canada’s Gross Domestic Product.

-First Nations and Métis communities were offered equity agreements giving them a 10% stake in the pipeline. In addition, $300 million in estimated employment and contracts adds up to $1 billion in total long-term benefits for Aboriginal communities and businesses.

jasonturbo

12-20-2013, 10:52 AM

I think the question is whether 1 billion in liability is enough. I would like to hear some comments from real actuary on that.

Marine time insurance and liability is also missing from the discussion.

Honestly they should just build the damn thing to end up Prince Rupert.

I'm obviously pro-pipeline, to me it's a non issue, trains and trucks are not a solution.

What is an issue, is the terminal and the ships. IMO all the media pissing and moaning about the pipeline should be traded for pissing and moaning about ocean transport, and the measures put in place to prevent and mitigate the impact of an incident.

godwin

12-20-2013, 10:54 AM

Well in Vancouver, we always have the stereotype we have an over abundance of liberal arts people who only know policy and complain. Heck even on RS.. how many people can weld properly?

Laying down pipeline is quite task specific. I would imagine engineering firms like AECom will take up some work. People on the ground? It will be a mix like current tar sands right now?

What is sad is the First Nations could have gotten training out of the building of this (much like the skyscraper building in NY the last century).. but everyone is so concentrated in saying no than to think.

We don't have enough trained people who are willing to do the work.

Straight from their website:
[Are these contracts going to be awards to local companies or to the lowest bidder?]

MasonJar

12-20-2013, 11:05 AM

We don't have enough trained people who are willing to do the work.

This is sad, but true.

jasonturbo

12-20-2013, 11:13 AM

The work for mainline construction would not be awarded locally, it would go to the big firms based out of Alberta.. but much of the workforce will be from BC. No local BC pipeline companies can handle a big inch mainline project like the NG.

Fabrication work associated with valve and pump stations would be awarded locally, probably 50% of better as BC fab rates are lower than Alberta anyway.

Civil work for access/pioneer and stations would probably be awarded 100% to BC companies, depending how the scope is broke out.

Engineering firm I have no idea who it is, probably Calgary office though... for some reason I think it's Worley Parsons.

... All of the above is based on my experience, I work for TCPL so I'm not exactly "in the loop" on this work.

sdubfid

12-20-2013, 11:19 AM

The bottom line is you either build the pipe line and sell oil to the east for full price

Or you build one to the states and sell the oil for a quarter of the price
Posted via RS Mobile

All 3 may happen. 1 to Irving refinery back east, 1 to USA and 1 to BC. I just counted about 202 under construction or awaiting approval oil sand projects (sagd or mine sites) in alberta.

I have worked for seaspan and as far as I know there have been no oil barge incidents, or major incidents of any kind. The same can't be said for bc ferries. How many hard dockings have they had? Don't forget about the ferry with 200000+ litres of fuel on the bottom of the ocean. Why don't we ban bc ferries or cruiseships?

Straight from the federal government website
Facts and Figures
•More than 192,000 temporary foreign workers entered Canada in 2011. The overall total includes about 70,000 foreign workers whose employer required an LMO from HRSDC and close to 120,000 who did not require an LMO.
•In 2011, more than 29,000 temporary foreign workers made the transition to permanent status.

Going on behind the scenes foreign people are taking Canadian jobs and we are going to be exporting raw materials.

I currently work in a SAGD plant near fort mcmurray and what Hondaracer says is entirely true. If you spill 1L on a concrete floor (easily cleanable), you would think somebody got murdered. All sorts of paperwork and investigation. However SAGD has a very small physical footprint compared to mining techniques. I'd say Costco and its parking lot takes up more space than my plant. 90% of the water is reused and pressures are limited to avoid cracking the formation. It's not good for the environment (what is?) but its 1000 times better than mining IMO.

Clean natural gas is burned to produce dirty oil to be put in our cars. If our cars were fueled by natural gas instead of gasoline emissions could be dropped almost 50%. If every vehicle stored its braking energy via a hydraulic accumulator or electric charging a further ~30% reduction could be made.

Think about the wind up cars you had as a kid.

Unless you wipe your butt with leaves and paddle your homemade canoe everywhere and eat seals you are part of the problem. Pretty much all of us.

CharlesInCharge

12-20-2013, 11:20 AM

jasonturbo

12-20-2013, 11:23 AM

If you spill 1L on a concrete floor (easily cleanable), you would think somebody got murdered. All sorts of paperwork and investigation.

QFT, it's insane, oil can be just oozing out of the ground into ditchwater and thats fine, but if a drop of oil falls off your dipstick and hits the ground you'll most certainly be crucified for abusing the environment.

jasonturbo

12-20-2013, 11:28 AM

Manic!

12-20-2013, 01:12 PM

Anyone watch Gold Rush on discovery? Todd Hoffman and crew spill like 55 gallons of hydraulic fluid in the Amazon jungle an know one cares.

Iceman-19

12-20-2013, 01:15 PM

Oh you can bet that environmentalists were boarding planes to go protest, but then someone told them that the flights they would take to go protest would cause more harm to the environment then the spill did, so they are walking there. Thats why they aren't there yet.

Soundy

12-20-2013, 01:33 PM

Take the fact that pretty much all British Columbians are settler immigrants and have no historical ancestral connection past 100-150 years (2-3 generations at most) to this land, I dont see how the ZioAmerican empire can be stopped in its exploitation of resources and destruction of the land for its one world government ambitions.
http://pix.echtlustig.com/1308/65-wat.jpg

We don't have enough trained people who are willing to do the work.

This is the sad truth... or more to the point, who are will to go work in the middle of butt-fuck-nowhere without demanding massively higher pay. Which is why companies in the north are big on foreign workers: it's not so much that they'll work for less than "industry standard" so much as that they'll actually work for a decent rate instead of trying to rape the company in the ass just because it's "in the boonies".

SoNaRWaVe

12-20-2013, 03:20 PM

So 50,000 liters spills on the ground In a remote area where only the pipeline is, what's the impact?
Posted via RS Mobile

i'm not sure if i'm misunderstanding your question here, but the environment? possible water sources? ecosystems? etc. :badpokerface:

Hondaracer

12-20-2013, 03:59 PM

But like I said in my first post, the absolute destruction of the areas they are actually mining is far worse than any spill would ever be
Posted via RS Mobile

tool001

12-20-2013, 04:03 PM

But like I said in my first post, the absolute destruction of the areas they are actually mining is far worse than any spill would ever be
Posted via RS Mobile

lol ..wat.. :fulloffuck:

Hondaracer

12-20-2013, 04:05 PM

A pipeline failure is a drop in the bucket. what else is there to understand?
Posted via RS Mobile

Soundy

12-20-2013, 06:28 PM

SoNaRWaVe

12-21-2013, 11:32 AM

Thing is, you hear numbers tossed around like, "Oooo look, that spill was 20,000 litres, oh the humanity, the Earth is doomed!!"... and yes, as bad as that is for the immediate area, it literally is a tiny, tiny drop in a very large bucket. Just to put it in perspective, a standard Olympic swimming pool, at 50m long, 25m wide (10 2.5m lanes), and a nominal depth of 2m, contains 2.5 MILLION litres of water. In other words, a "massive" 20,000l spill is less than 1% the volume of an Olympic pool - almost immeasurable on a global scale.

yes, that would be a way of putting it, but you can't view it as a global scale. its every little thing that adds up. a 20,000L spill is a 20,000L spill, even at less than 1% of the volume of an Olympic pool. the damage is done. but as everything, no pain, no gain.

its like going out into a town that still uses septic systems and using well water as their source. if a house in that town were to only leak a fraction of sewage from the tanks, its nothing compared to the whole town. but if every household was to leak, water source may be contaminated and it becomes a bigger problem.

RTS

12-24-2013, 12:23 AM

Lets just not build anything that could be potentially polluting or dangerous.

Manic!

12-24-2013, 01:53 AM

Lets just not build anything that could be potentially polluting or dangerous.

So build absolutely nothing.

Where are you going to live?

RTS

12-24-2013, 10:36 AM

So build absolutely nothing.

Where are you going to live?

Exactly

Mr.HappySilp

12-24-2013, 02:35 PM

Lets just not build anything that could be potentially polluting or dangerous.

Is not we don't want to building the pipeline, to me it seems like there isn't enough safety precautions.

Example your bank hires a bunch of repeated robbery as a bank security to safe guard your deposit box, do you still safe with this bank?

This is what people don't like this project, Enbridge is known to have crappy safety standards and it have records of poor clean up. So who end up with the bill the clean up and all the damage done to our beautiful BC? We do while the CEO of Enbridge and its share holders make billions. People want liability so say if there is a spill or any accidents Enbridge is fully responsibility to pay for the clean and any damage done to the enviroment and also the CEO needs to be accountable for (such as jail time.).

And please don't give me the I am the CEO but I don't know every detail of the project so therefore I am not responsibility for any accidents. That's what CEO is for, be responsibility for your company, that's why you get pay millions every year.

jasonturbo

12-26-2013, 12:54 PM

And please don't give me the I am the CEO but I don't know every detail of the project so therefore I am not responsibility for any accidents. That's what CEO is for, be responsibility for your company, that's why you get pay millions every year.

Perhaps you are not aware of Bill C-45 or how it came to be?

Bill C-45 - Overview : OSH Answers (http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/legisl/billc45.html)

Westray Mine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically, in light of the mine disaster, CEO Clifford Frame pulled the "well how am I accountable for what happens at the mine xxxxKm's away when I'm in my Toronto office?"... and walked away unscathed.

So the Gov stepped in and wrote Bill C-45 to ensure people in management could be held accountable for virtually anything related to safety/environmental.

sonick

06-17-2014, 08:27 AM

Bump, so the gov't is going to announce it's decision on the pipeline today after markets close, and all signs point to approval.

Stock up almost 1%.

With pipeline decision imminent, deadlines mount for Enbridge - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/with-pipeline-decision-imminent-deadlines-mount-for-enbridge/article19191583/)

Edit: Official now: http://www.theprovince.com/business/energy/Decision+Final+ruling+Northern+Gateway+expected+to day/9946838/story.html

meme405

06-17-2014, 09:13 AM

WOW! We have a thread on the pipeline. This is like a whole new playground for me.

Lol, jk. I probably shouldn't even post in this thread.

So I will only say this:

If they don't build the pipeline, the oil will find another way out of the sands. It's not like they will stop generating bitumen without the pipeline. So the alternative very likely will be a railway and getting the material out by that method.

How good of a track record do we have with that method?

Hondaracer

06-17-2014, 09:48 AM

Yes on pipeline!

Hondaracer

06-17-2014, 01:13 PM

Approved, thank god

noclue

06-17-2014, 01:22 PM

This is why you elect a PM who has a degree in economics, not law.

Pro-Business and No BS.

Disclosure: Own shares in Enbridge, stock up 2% after hours

meme405

06-17-2014, 01:38 PM

Disclosure: Own shares in Enbridge, stock up 2% after hours

You must truly be in the money now...:suspicious:

I'm relieved because this is a decent amount of work being generated, but I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe that this is the end of this battle.

This project is still far off from going anywhere.

The only problem I have with the plan as it sits, has nothing to do with the environment (probably because I am a capitalist pig), but it has to do with the spread of the wealth this pipeline will generate.

The profits should go back into BC and Alberta economies, instead though eastern provinces have to get their cut, which is frankly BS because they have no risk or stake in the matter.

Then again it would never be approved unless they received their cut, so realistically its all fucked now.

CharlesInCharge

06-17-2014, 01:40 PM

@noclue
What about the PM that never spoke out for a nationalized oil company? Do you think he may have been lobbied not to?
With Canada being as large and resourceful, Im sure many countries would have loaned us money to extract our selves no?

white rocket

06-17-2014, 01:46 PM

Sounds like there will be some serious continued protesting. One First Nations chief said he'd die before letting this happen and is literally willing to give his life to prevent this. Should be interesting to see how this unfolds.

Hondaracer

06-17-2014, 01:50 PM

There's going to be years of lawsuits and protests but it will eventually go through

CharlesInCharge

06-17-2014, 01:52 PM

They will crush us with vehicle city mobility zone fees until we give in and help break up protests along the way for the pipe line of gold!

pastarocket

06-17-2014, 02:13 PM

The lawyers that represent First Nations groups and environmental groups in lawsuits are gonna make it rain with the money they will be making from this issue.

godwin

06-17-2014, 05:21 PM

That's well and good.. what is going to happen is Enbridge will offer more right of way money and the First Nations will acquiesce.. Environmental groups often compare this to Clayoquot sound.Guess what? In the end, the First Nations once got the land, turned around and logged it.

Remember there will still be pipelines, First Nations are supportive of LNG, just not tar sands.

I say let every side exercise their right to complain and chat.. that's what democracy is about. Paper companies, courier companies rejoice!

The lawyers that represent First Nations groups and environmental groups in lawsuits are gonna make it rain with the money they will be making from this issue.

shenmecar

06-17-2014, 11:39 PM

The lawyers that represent First Nations groups and environmental groups in lawsuits are gonna make it rain with the money they will be making from this issue.

The lawyers ALWAYS win.

CharlesInCharge

06-24-2014, 11:32 AM

I dont think the First Nations will risk ancestral lands, which havent been conquered or set foot on by a white man, to be polluted as it would ruin it for thousands of years for their future offspring. Land is very valuable and that is the one thing that will keep a people from generations of servitude.

Theres a meeting tonight to brain wash the would be young (under 30 it states) protesters to come out and question the pipeline.

What do you think about the pipeline proposal? What are your questions?
A conversation on the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline

Free

We are inviting young Vancouverites (under 30 or young at heart) to join us for an "open space" forum to learn more about the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion proposal. You'll get to propose dialogue topics and discuss your views. This event is a partnership between SFU Centre for Dialogue and the City of Vancouver.
Date and time

June 24 2014, 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

Add to my calendar
Location

Roundhouse Community Centre, 181 Roundhouse Mews (Davie and Pacific)

Vancouver
Calendar of events | City of Vancouver (http://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/calendar-of-events.aspx)

Also
5 times Canadians were utterly misled about the Northern Gateway pipeline
5 times Canadians were utterly misled about the Northern Gateway pipeline | Press Progress (http://www.pressprogress.ca/en/post/5-times-canadians-were-utterly-misled-about-northern-gateway-pipeline)