| Author |
Topic |
 Fowl photographin, animal lovin, thread trollin, dry bag humpin, canoe canoodler
Vancouver, BC
Canada
4038 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2012 : 3:43 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by brucew
Monster it would be nice if you cut and paste Releases points instead of wasted reading.
Yes, you are echoing my own thoughts on this Bruce... it really gets out of control quickly.
Release, a few points that need to be made clear here.
First, this thread is not an argument about whether or not the tar sands should be developed, climate change, GHG emissions or which fossil fuels produce the most when burnt.
This thread is about a pipeline proposal that is absolutely wrong because of the geography it is expected to traverse, the particular type of product it will carry and the completely insane environmental risk posed by allowing super tanker traffic to sail the most treacherous coastline in the country.
Now I will grant you what you seem to want, and it is something that almost everyone has been well aware of going back to early 2000s. Burning coal produces more GHG emissions than burning oil.
Now if you want to have a conversation about GHGs and Climate Change and why tar sands oil is considered to be 'dirty oil' we can take that conversation to anther thread because this thread... is about the inevitable devastation of a pristine area of BC that absolutely will happen if this pipeline goes through. Also for the record, there are currently no pipelines anywhere near this area of the province.
Lastly, you and I dont seem to disagree on very much. I am not opposed to tar sands development. I, much like you and Peter Laugheed and almost every sane person who has looked objectively at the tar sands development has said it needs to be slowed down, it needs better, cleaner extraction technologies and it needs to consume a lot less resources (NGs and water) per barrel of oil it produces.
P.S. The way the tar sands are developed is not your fault simply because you live in the same province. I can tell you are tired of taking it up the bum because you too share the same concerns as everyone else about the pace of it's development but again... it's not your fault so don't take it personally. Just keep the fight going from the inside and we got yer back on the outside ;)
I wish more Albertan's felt the same way you do about a moratorium on new developments. |
|
|
1067 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2012 : 06:47 AM
|
This is a bit of an aside, but I found it interesting.
The Trans-Mountain pipeline is currently over-subscribed. To meet the demand in the Lower Mainland, some major oil companies are actually importing from California by tanker into Burrard Inlet.
Similarly, the East Coast of Canada has been turning to Finnish oil to meet demand. And in Finland, they supplement their supply by refining Russian crude.
Kind of funny that we may be using American and Russian oil in Canada. |
|
|
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
253 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2012 : 2:58 PM
|
Monster.
Your response here has humbled me. I am impressed with your response in the face of my obvious frustration and anger. No sarcasim there. And you're right; we probably agree in many many areas that are hard to see in a forum environment. Thanks, apologies and no hard feelings. |
|
|
|
Fowl photographin, animal lovin, thread trollin, dry bag humpin, canoe canoodler
Vancouver, BC
Canada
4038 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2012 : 3:55 PM
|
Thanks Release.
Although yer kind of inadvertently backing me into a corner here because I was a little harsh myself on KayC (nother thread, same topic) last week but ya know, he said some poop about my hockey team the year before and well... I suppose that doesn't excuse my... I mean he didn't really deserve... ahhh crap I just cant do it
YOU STILL SUCK KayC..! |
|
|
1067 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2012 : 5:47 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Monster
YOU STILL SUCK KayC..!
I do....just the way your mother likes it Trebek, er, Monster. |
|
|
|
Fowl photographin, animal lovin, thread trollin, dry bag humpin, canoe canoodler
Vancouver, BC
Canada
4038 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2012 : 7:24 PM
|
Yesterday I read this article posted on several media outlets by Canadian Press News Editor Dene Moore.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/no-pipeline-cash-for-b-c-from-alberta-s-piece-of-the-pie-redford-1.913734
I immediately noticed the statement that... [i]"Clark is set to go to the polls next May, in a province where the pipeline project has deeply divided the public."[\i] and so I immediately wondered by what metrics this statement could be based upon?
I put a phone call into the BC office of the Canadian Press and sure enough they had the authors chief editor Terri Territheodre give me a phone call this morning at 9am.
I explained that I was interested in obtaining the source for Mrs. Moore's statement that "the pipeline project has deeply divided the public."
Terri Territheodre replied a little incredulously "well I think it's self-evident." Detecting her apprehensive tone I tried to reply with a very non accusing tone of my own "yes, but based on what metrics, a poll or...?
At this point she asks abruptly "who are you with?" I gave her my first and last name again but didn't specify any affiliation as I felt it was irrelevant to the question, I mean all I was asking for was the source for this statement. She then continued “well if you have been following the Canadian Energy Board hearings on the pipeline would know that there have been several businesses that have testified quite strongly in favour of the pipeline.” I replied that I had been following and was aware that certain business interests and made strong presentations of support but that, the statement in the article refers to the “British Columbia PUBLIC” being “deeply divided”.
At this point Terri Territheodre started sounding quite agitated and uncomfortable so I went on to explain that, I’ve looked at the four available polls I’ve been able to find and they all show a varying degrees of opposition in the 50-65% range, with another 20% being mildly opposed but possibly willing to change their positions if the pipeline could be shown to be safe, but that none of the polls taken to date show any significant support (marginal) from the BC public.
Terri then shot back saying “polls aren’t very accurate!” To which I agreed but that, in the absence of any other metrics to base the statement upon that she approved in the article, was the statement simply speculation? She replied “well I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.” and that was the end of our conversation.
In short, the BC editor of the Canadian Press Terri Territheodre basically admitted to me that the statement about the BC public being “deeply divided” on the pipeline proposal was a complete fabrication.
The only question I have left now is, could this have been anything but an intentional effort to misrepresent the truth?
I really am quite surprised. |
|
|
304 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2012 : 8:54 PM
|
| Maybe she thinks corporations are people too, just like ol Mitt down south. |
|
|
|
Outward Bound author of the Seinfeld Thread, who builds his own snowshoes
Troy, MT
USA
3125 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2012 : 05:06 AM
|
Are corporations not made up of people? Or would you prefer that everyone work for the government and magical "tourism dollars" shoot out of your ass along with a few rainbows to sustain the economy.
In the end, businesses report to their shareholders. If enough people wanted to see a change, they could buy Enbridge and decide the direction that the company goes in.
|
|
|
Maple Ridge, BC
Canada
344 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2012 : 7:24 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Farmer
Are corporations not made up of people? Or would you prefer that everyone work for the government and magical "tourism dollars" shoot out of your ass along with a few rainbows to sustain the economy.
In the end, businesses report to their shareholders. If enough people wanted to see a change, they could buy Enbridge and decide the direction that the company goes in.
Corporations report to shareholders. A small but important distinction.
Is the government not made up of people? I get a bit tired of this idea that the government can't do anything but private industry can. It's never one or the other. It varies. Those awful awful shades of grey only ongoing research and consideration can navigate in public policy.
Enbridge reports to shareholders but have no particular legal responsibility other than profit. Well, some, but none so strongly enforced. A government has a mandated to serve people in much more complex ways and won't forget about me the day I lose my money.
Also, I shouldn't have to buy enbridge, in fact, I could care less about enbridge as an organization. They can flick pennies at each other all day for as much as I care. But they happen to leech off and loan Canada's resources and land to produce their activity. That I do care about because, by merit of being a tax-paying citizen, I own that land along with the rest of the commonwealth, including yourself. When business needs our stuff to run, it has no right to it just because it can make it profitable. There are other considerations humans, ctiizens and, yes, governments are better equipped with contending with than corporations or co-ops etc. What we are discussing here are the other considerations that enbridge, as a non-human profit focused organization, is not burdened with. The pipeline is profitable, we can agree. I don't want it here for other reasons.
You'd be hard done by to prove that collapsing the northern gateway plan would somehow tank the economy. If we can make our concerns a real roadblock, it won't sack the economy or even the plan. It will simply force the private sector to produce a better plan. If it is truly wise and profitable to move bitumen to the coast, then find a way that doesn't risk BC's non-profitable concerns. Actually, if no better plan can exist, it will be inevitable. But I'm sure other plans, maybe some completely unrelated to pipelines, will emerge. The sky isn't falling, BC has more than tourism dollars in its economy and, indeed, I work a job that benefits strongly from these sort of projects so I appreciate the appeal.
All that said, monster said it best:
quote:
This thread is about a pipeline proposal that is absolutely wrong because of the geography it is expected to traverse, the particular type of product it will carry and the completely insane environmental risk posed by allowing super tanker traffic to sail the most treacherous coastline in the country.
It's little more than filibustering, and not responding to, that legitimate criticism to frame it as a hippie v. business or BC v. Alberta issue. It's not. Some may be attacking from that side, but that's not why the issue has gained such prominence in the public mind. It's a silly plan that happens to pose a lot more harm to BC than Alberta.
I do hope monster, and others like him here, will send an equal elegant reply to his representative. It may do nothing, but it's been an effective approach in the past. |
|
|
|
Fowl photographin, animal lovin, thread trollin, dry bag humpin, canoe canoodler
Vancouver, BC
Canada
4038 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2012 : 12:39 AM
|
I just found this article today, does anyone still doubt what a terrible disaster this pipeline would be for British Columbia?
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Tankers+risky+coastal+environment+independent+engineering/7176305/story.html
on another note, I'm getting pretty tired of the Harper gov characterizing any opposition to this pipeline as being only that of hard core environmentalists, and likely with foreign funding. Their attitude completely dismisses the very honest opinions of a majority of BC residents.
The Enbridge Northern Gateway proposal to ship oilsands bitumen from Kitimat along the B.C. coast carries an unacceptable risk of a significant spill, according to an independent analysis by three professional engineers.
The engineers, who include two emeritus professors from the University of B.C., find that the risks of an eventual spill are too high through the expected 50-year lifetime of the project, “and the unrefined bitumen too toxic and hard to clean up to be acceptable for a pristine coastline.”
The independent analysis generally agrees with Enbridge’s estimate that a spill of a volume greater than 5,000 cubic metres will occur, on average, every 200 years.
But the analysis notes this does not equate with a spill every 200 years (the so-called return period), only an average time between spills of 200 years.
“In fact, consistent with a 200-year return period, there is a probability of 22 per cent that there will be at least one spill during the 50-year operational lifetime for the project,” the engineers explain in a summary of the technical document supplied to The Vancouver Sun.
“That’s much higher than standards normally accepted in the design of civil infrastructure with high consequences in the case of failure (earthquake design, important bridges, etc.).
“When the analysis added the liquefied natural gas tanker traffic projects already under construction, approved or awaiting approval for the port of Kitimat (432 tankers per year), the return period of an incident (tanker collisions or groundings) decreased to 38 years, or a 73-per-cent chance of at least one such an incident during a 50-year operational lifetime.”
The analysis concludes: “This is clearly an unacceptable risk.”
The three experts who conducted the analysis are Ricardo Foschi and Robert Sexsmith, both emeritus engineering professors at UBC, and Brian Gunn, a retired professional engineer who is currently president of B.C.’s Wilderness Tourism Association.
The analysis has been formally filed with the federal Joint Review Panel investigating the $6-billion Northern Gateway proposal.
Enbridge spokesman Ivan Giesbrecht said the company would provide a formal response to the panel by Sept. 14.
Known as Dilbit, diluted bitumen is a mix of heavy crude oil and a condensate that allows it to flow through a pipe, the analysis explains. When Dilbit spills occur, the condensate separates from the bitumen and “forms a toxic cloud, poisonous to all life around the spill,” it said.
And whereas lighter oil floats on the surface of water where it is easier to clean up, “bitumen sinks to the bottom in fresh water and to a level below the surface in saline water.
“In both cases it is almost impossible to clean up and tides and currents can spread it over vast areas, with severe and catastrophic consequences for fisheries, marine life and human safety.”
In an interview Friday, Gunn said that a 5,000-cubic-metre spill is the equivalent to about one-seventh of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, and about twice the size of the Enbridge spill in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan in 2010.
Gunn said he sought out the expertise of Foschi and Sexsmith to assist him in the analysis based on his concerns over the impact of an oil spill on the coast.
“It’s related to my involvement with the wilderness [association] and being up the coast and involved in land-use planning in the Great Bear Rainforest. I care about what’s happening.”
|
|
|
North Vancouver, BC
Canada
1263 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2012 : 10:29 AM
|
Ahhh Harper,Enbridge,global markets.
Have you ever noticed that when the global financial empires started their fall and various leaders of government came out with stimulous packages to try to get the global mess cleaned up, there were and still are Economists out there saying this will not work. So we have governments and premiers and prime ministers all saying that they want a pipeline to the coast, and we have scientists, environmentalists and the general public saying no this is not a good idea.
I find it interesting that every time I vote for a party to get in that has a fair amount of beliefs that I may share, that as soon as they get into power all the elected officials develope SID's ( Sudden Intelligence Defeciencies ) . Enbridge makes money ,pays taxes , employees people, has oil spills, employees people to clean up oil spills, and makes the ruling government happy that they are doing something a heck of a long way from Ottawa. We need a good spill of toxic sludge in the parliment buildings main entrance, and call in Enbridge to clean it up in their timely manner. |
|
|
322 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2012 : 10:15 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Monster
This thread is about a pipeline proposal that is absolutely wrong because of the geography it is expected to traverse, the particular type of product it will carry and the completely insane environmental risk posed by allowing super tanker traffic to sail the most treacherous coastline in the country.
What's wrong with the geography along the route??? Thousands of kilometres of pipeline, innumerable roads and railroads that carry tanker traffic, etc. cross far harder terrain every day without incident.
"Completely insane environmental risk"- on what basis do you make this statement? Has there been even one spill by any oil tanker in our waters? Thousands of ships ply those same channels every day- and the only ship that I can remember that foundered was the Queen of the North- but even that didn't cause a big oil spill problem. Today, we have far more sophisticated navigational aids (like GPS) and so the extremely small chance of having a spill is reduced even more!
Many people talk about the impacts of a spill as if it is a foregone conclusion that one will inevitably occur, and that such a spill would cause an irreparable and long lasting environmental catastrophe. So where are the facts to back up these statements? |
|
|
|
Outward Bound author of the Seinfeld Thread, who builds his own snowshoes
Troy, MT
USA
3125 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2012 : 4:57 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Monster
I just found this article today, does anyone still doubt what a terrible disaster this pipeline would be for British Columbia?
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Tankers+risky+coastal+environment+independent+engineering/7176305/story.html
on another note, I'm getting pretty tired of the Harper gov characterizing any opposition to this pipeline as being only that of hard core environmentalists, and likely with foreign funding. Their attitude completely dismisses the very honest opinions of a majority of BC residents.
The "majority of BC residents" proved themselves incapable of logical thought during the HST referendum. |
|
|
Popkum, BC
Canada
5887 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2012 : 5:09 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Farmer
quote:
Originally posted by Monster
I just found this article today, does anyone still doubt what a terrible disaster this pipeline would be for British Columbia?
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Tankers+risky+coastal+environment+independent+engineering/7176305/story.html
on another note, I'm getting pretty tired of the Harper gov characterizing any opposition to this pipeline as being only that of hard core environmentalists, and likely with foreign funding. Their attitude completely dismisses the very honest opinions of a majority of BC residents.
The "majority of BC residents" proved themselves incapable of logical thought during the HST referendum.
I agree with you, finally, you cranky young man . |
|
|
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
253 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2012 : 7:41 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by FrankB
quote:
Originally posted by Monster
This thread is about a pipeline proposal that is absolutely wrong because of the geography it is expected to traverse, the particular type of product it will carry and the completely insane environmental risk posed by allowing super tanker traffic to sail the most treacherous coastline in the country.
What's wrong with the geography along the route??? Thousands of kilometres of pipeline, innumerable roads and railroads that carry tanker traffic, etc. cross far harder terrain every day without incident.
 |
|
|
Salmon Arm, BC
Canada
894 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2012 : 10:12 AM
|
| Enbridge's choice of names for this proposed pipeline is fortuitous: NOrhtern gateWAY |
|
|
Vancouver
1820 Posts |
|
Maple Ridge, BC
Canada
344 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2012 : 2:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by sgRant
I saw Canada Post's new electric van in downtown Vancouver today. Reminds one of the old streamliners.
http://green.autoblog.com/2011/04/16/canada-post-adds-navistar-estar-electric-delivery-van-to-fleet/
I'll be very interested in how this pans out. It will be interesting to see how this technology works in a high strain environment. It's also an idea place to take a chunk out of carbon emissions given that they work predictable routes in battery range. |
|
|
322 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2012 : 8:20 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Monster
Here is the only consideration any sane person need realize. Our coast line sits on one of the most dangerous fault lines known, one that produces subduction zone earth quakes, the 'really big ones'! This pipe line won't even survive a small earth quake without spilling a whole lot of oil.
This is not correct- the proposed pipeline would go across northern British Columbia to Kitimat, which is nowhere near the Cascadia Subduction zone; check out this link for more info: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/structure/crust/cascadia.php . The Queen Charlotte fault off the west side of the Queen Charlotte Islands, which is similar to the San Andreas Fault, is closer- but still more than 300 km away from the pipeline.
The easiest way to compare susceptibility to earthquakes is to use the Natural Resources Canada seismic calculator (http://www.earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/hazard-alea/interpolat/index_2010-eng.php ) to calculate the expected ground acceleration at a given location for an earthquake expected to occur on average once every 2450 years (2% in 50 years; this is the standard for buildings contained in the National Building Code).
For Victoria, B.C. (which is one of the larger cities close to the subduction zone), the ground acceleration for a 1 in 2450 earthquake is predicted to be 1.2 g (120% of the acceleration due to gravity). By comparison, the ground acceleration at Kitimat is only 0.37 g (37% of gravity).
A number of your other comments are also either not correct or exaggerated. This is always the problem with debates like this- forum posters can basically say anything they want; they are accountable to no one. By comparison, Enbridge has to make sure that their engineers stick to the facts, and have ample evidence to support any statements that they make.
I'm not saying that some of the concerns expressed here are not genuine- but in order for democracy to work and for good decisions to be made, the politicians that we elect, and ultimately, the electorate, must be in receipt of accurate and complete information. It is also vital for the rule of law to prevail- civil disobedience, especially violence, has no place in a civilized society.
If you want to see more of the facts, go to this site: http://www.northerngateway.ca
|
|
|
322 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2012 : 9:02 PM
|
Oh, and for the record- I am still undecided about whether I support the Northern Gateway Pipeline. If the oil was shipped south via the Keystone Pipeline instead, we would reap most of the economic benefits (we would not get as much money from the Americans for the oil), but the environmental risks would be much lower. There would, of course, be a big economic cost to British Columbians- but then, we're all willing to put up with a lower standard of living and higher taxes for the sake of the environment, right?? Give up our boats, snowmobiles, gas-guzzling cars, single person car commutes, etc. etc.
I do support construction of the ENCANA Natural Gas pipeline and LNG plant at Kitimat because I think natural gas is the fuel of the future and will dramatically change how Canada and the rest of the world gets its energy. Trouble is, it will also make it really difficult for renewable energy projects (wind, small hydro, geothermal) to be viable. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Enbridge Pipeline
