BC Pipeline Ruling In

Status
Not open for further replies.
terrin said:
Actually shipping by rail is a lot less risky to the environment because in a derailment only a few cars leave the track and usually they will not totally rupture where as a pipeline spill keeps on spilling until someone discovers it. Spill volume wise there has been a lot more Oil spilled from ruptured pipelines even very new pipelines than ever will be spilled by rail. Don't see too many tanker truck accidents either but since they are required to deliver refined petrolium to gas stations its amazing there are only a very few accidents with tanker trucks. I don't think you are suggesting they build pipelines to each gas station too are you? When the incident were to happen in the Harbour they have no means to clean up the Raw Bitumen as it sinks and then just spreads like deadly goop killing everything that lives on the ocean floor. Do you actually believe that the shipping company will have the ability to scoop all that up off the ocean floor or just go bankrupt and leave it. Our tourism is not worth the risk and niether is our health.
Click to expand...

You may want to check your above facts.
Pipelines are significantly safer than shipping by rail and wildly safer than shipping by tank truck.
Where do you get this ****??? Ever hear of Lac-Mégantic?
 
terrin said:
If its all going to Cherry Point anyway like Walleyes says why not just increase the spur line and pipe it directly down there. They can refine it maximize its value and then sell it to the highest bidder and it doesn't need to go through the inner harbour and Georgia Straight.
Click to expand...

The entire point of this pipeline is to get away from sending our oil to the USA at a discounted price.
 
redram99 said:
You may want to check your above facts.
Pipelines are significantly safer than shipping by rail and wildly safer than shipping by tank truck.
Where do you get this ****??? Ever hear of Lac-Mégantic?
Click to expand...
Best check your facts. What makes Bakken oil more flammable than other oil, like the heavy crude harvested from Canada's tar sands? Basically, it contains more natural gas, making its vapor combustible at a much lower temperature. More specifically, Bakken crude tends to have sizable amounts of easily ignitable propane and butane, Zak Mortensen at oil-quality analysis firm Inspectorate America Corp. tells Bloomberg News. There is, of course, another option: Pipelines. But pipelines can and do rupture, and Bakken crude won't become any less explosive just because it isn't being carried by rail. Also, the only proposed pipeline to pass through North Dakota — Keystone XL — goes only south, toward the Gulf Coast. Here is the link in case your interested https://theweek.com/articles/453622/why-north-dakota-oil-dangerously-flammable Lac-Megantic disaster was Bakken oil.
 
redram99 said:
The entire point of this pipeline is to get away from sending our oil to the USA at a discounted price.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you were not paying attention but the only tankers able to squeeze through first and second narrows in vancouver harbour would be vastly undersized for any potential shipments to asian markets.
 
terrin said:
Actually shipping by rail is a lot less risky to the environment because in a derailment only a few cars leave the track and usually they will not totally rupture where as a pipeline spill keeps on spilling until someone discovers it.....
Click to expand...
They normally do propose automatic sensors with shut-offs every x km along the pipeline.

BUT...

There's several km of pipeline that can leak... and in the case of diluted bitumen.. it's chunky with predicted pressure spikes during charging the line - and those sensors would need to record a very low pressure to shut it off - presumably shutting the barn doors long only after the horses left...
 
terrin said:
Actually shipping by rail is a lot less risky to the environment because in a derailment only a few cars leave the track and usually they will not totally rupture where as a pipeline spill keeps on spilling until someone discovers it.....
Click to expand...
They normally do propose automatic sensors with shut-offs every x km along the pipeline.

BUT...

There's several km of pipeline that can leak (and leak possibly downhill into creeks) ... and in the case of diluted bitumen.. it's chunky with predicted pressure spikes during charging the line - and those sensors would need to record a very low pressure for an extended period to shut it off - presumably shutting the barn doors long only after the horses left...

And these proposed pipelines are often proposed to go through the mountain regions (Trans-"Mountain" - it's even in the name) that have areas that have avalanches, landslides, earthquakes, debris flows - and not to mention crossing creeks. Gravity works - and everything rolls downhill into creeks and waterbodies - which is how the water ended-up there.

When released from the pipeline - the volatile hydrocarbons evaporate (the dil of the dilbit) and one is left with the tar-like bitumen that doesn't float very long as river sediment is bound into the tar (so you can`t clean it up conventionally using surface booms - even if the fast current allowed booms) - and you get a tar ball rolling around on the bottom of the creek - rolling into spawning gravel - for example. It`s staying there practically forever - until it gets buried deep enough if you are lucky, and it doesn't get unburied during aggradation/erosion processes.

Bitumen also contains nasty PAHs that kill fish and eggs - and will leak PAHs for years.

You don`t hear these realities from the Albertan pro-pipeline pundits.
 
Last edited:
agentaqua said:
They normally do propose automatic sensors with shut-offs every x km along the pipeline.

BUT...

There's several km of pipeline that can leak (and leak possibly downhill into creeks) ... and in the case of diluted bitumen.. it's chunky with predicted pressure spikes during charging the line - and those sensors would need to record a very low pressure for an extended period to shut it off - presumably shutting the barn doors long only after the horses left...

And these proposed pipelines are often proposed to go through the mountain regions that have areas that have avalanches, landslides, earthquakes, debris flows - and not to mention crossing creeks. Gravity works - and everything rolls downhill into creeks and waterbodies - which is how the water ended-up there.

When released from the pipeline - the volatile hydrocarbons evaporate (the dil of the dilbit) and one is left with the tar-like bitumen that doesn't float very long as river sediment is bound into the tar (so you can`t clean it up conventionally using surface booms - even if the fast current allowed booms) - and you get a tar ball rolling around on the bottom of the creek - rolling into spawning gravel - for example. It`s staying there practically forever - until it gets buried deep enough if you are lucky, and it doesn't get unburied during aggradation/erosion processes.

Bitumen also contains nasty PAHs that kill fish and eggs - and will leak PAHs for years.

You don`t hear these realities from the Albertan pro-pipeline pundits.
Click to expand...
Unless of course this happens https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmo...for-northern-alberta-pipeline-break-1.3157475
 
RogersonCrusoe said:
At the risk of opening a can of worms:
From their website they keep pushing the notion that the oils transported through the pipeline will be destined to "other markets" (I read Asia). So we (BC) have to bear the brunt of the environmental impacts in case of a disaster, while getting a small portion of the revenues from the pipeline. I remain skeptical that this will even help out our fuel prices as we get a portion of it through 'Murica.

https://www.transmountain.com/project-overview
Click to expand...

exactly!!!. I remember when Chrispy Clark said "BC will get $1 million a year from the pipe line".
 
Where's Vivian Krause when you need her?:

Majority of oil sands ownership and profits are foreign, says analysis
https://business.financialpost.com/...nership-and-profits-are-foreign-says-analysis

YET - Scheer wants Canada off of "foreign" oil:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/canadian-oil-independence-andrew-scheer-1.5154179

AND Alberta is spending taxpayer $ (1.6 million is being spent on the campaign in Ottawa alone) to promote private industry in the "free" market economy - the same Alberta that wants less government control, involvement and better accountability from government:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmo...vage-trans-mountain-pipeline-ottawa-1.5153903
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calg...cuts-hypocrisy-susan-wright-opinion-1.4916404
https://www.macleans.ca/economy/governments-tight-grasp-on-alberta-oil-a-shortish-history/

hypocrite
noun
hyp·o·crite | \ ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit \
Definition of hypocrite

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
 
Last edited:
Going to get interesting when the FN own the majority ownership of the pipeline.
 
agentaqua said:
Where's Vivian Krause when you need her?:

Majority of oil sands ownership and profits are foreign, says analysis
https://business.financialpost.com/...nership-and-profits-are-foreign-says-analysis

YET - Scheer wants Canada off of "foreign" oil:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/canadian-oil-independence-andrew-scheer-1.5154179

AND Alberta is spending taxpayer $ (1.6 million is being spent on the campaign in Ottawa alone) to promote private industry in the "free" market economy - the same Alberta that wants less government control, involvement and better accountability from government:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmo...vage-trans-mountain-pipeline-ottawa-1.5153903
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calg...cuts-hypocrisy-susan-wright-opinion-1.4916404
https://www.macleans.ca/economy/governments-tight-grasp-on-alberta-oil-a-shortish-history/

hypocrite
noun
hyp·o·crite | \ ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit \
Definition of hypocrite

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
Click to expand...


First of all that article is from 2012 and the ownership in the region isn't even remotely close to those figures. Shell is no longer a player and CNRL now owns those assets. CNRL also just bought Devon Energy and their reserves in the area. Although an article from 2012 does suit your argument far better....lol
 
haha wow this has degraded fast into US propaganda, on the left we have jeff bezos and on the right we have koch brothers. The Left rich people funding for good and the right rich people funding evil.

Lets appeal to the middle class voter by making it seem like evil rich people and corporation on both sides are the funding sources and news sources.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
It's Shuswap vs. Sproat in the championship match of the Search for B.C.'s Best Lake
Replies
10
Views
880
agentaqua
A
Derby
Conservation Group buys out hunting rights
Replies
6
Views
652
IronNoggin
IronNoggin
G
Lest We Forget
Replies
0
Views
483
gone fishin
G
IronNoggin
Try not to let moose lick your car
Replies
0
Views
585
IronNoggin
IronNoggin
S
Two Men and Dog rescued in Powell River
Replies
2
Views
677
Foxsea
Foxsea
Back
Top