Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 254

Thread: Are you boycotting BC?

  1. #101
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,737

    Default

    Hearing on Global that 80% of all the fuel in the Vancouver area comes from Alberta via Kinder Morgan. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Jeez

  2. #102

    Default

    Maybe it's time for Kinder Morgan to have equipment failures. Where they can't get enough pressure in the pipeline for it to get to B.C. Imagine if that 80% of oil was delayed how expensive the 20% left would be.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  3. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Hearing on Global that 80% of all the fuel in the Vancouver area comes from Alberta via Kinder Morgan. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Jeez
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Maybe it's time for Kinder Morgan to have equipment failures. Where they can't get enough pressure in the pipeline for it to get to B.C. Imagine if that 80% of oil was delayed how expensive the 20% left would be.
    I guess neither of you have been reading. This pipeline expansion has nothing to do with bringing oil to Vancouver. It's all about removing oil from Canada and sending it to Asia.

  4. #104
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,737

    Default

    I think we are all starting to realize that in the long run our best and only option for moving our product will be through oil producing friendlier states to the gulf. Dakotas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana etc. They understand the business and we can all work better together ( excluding our federal governments and other states and provinces that are all rainbows and unicorns regardless of their great appetites and importation of similar product ).

  5. #105

    Default

    ^We know that but while the oil is being pumped through those pipes the pipes need to be maintained. The tankers that the oil gets loaded on no doubt have to pay a fee to dock and load in B.C. There are fees, tariffs, taxes or whatever B.C. wants to call it that have to be paid by all industries. B.C. is not a charitable organization where they say 'here, just take it' or 'just do it, it's free of charge'.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  6. #106
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Hearing on Global that 80% of all the fuel in the Vancouver area comes from Alberta via Kinder Morgan. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Jeez
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Maybe it's time for Kinder Morgan to have equipment failures. Where they can't get enough pressure in the pipeline for it to get to B.C. Imagine if that 80% of oil was delayed how expensive the 20% left would be.
    I guess neither of you have been reading. This pipeline expansion has nothing to do with bringing oil to Vancouver. It's all about removing oil from Canada and sending it to Asia.
    Everyone knows this OffWhyte but we are trying to grow our industry here in Alberta. We are trying to export some of this 1.7 trillion barrel giant reserve of oil to make money, jobs for citizens, royalties for prov and fed govt to supply services and all the rest of it. Get with the program already. If your so against our oil industry and our mainstay here in this province maybe it's time for you to move to Ganges on Saltspring Island and mingle with the hippies.

  7. #107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    I think we are all starting to realize that in the long run our best and only option for moving our product will be through oil producing friendlier states to the gulf. Dakotas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana etc. They understand the business and we can all work better together ( excluding our federal governments and other states and provinces that are all rainbows and unicorns regardless of their great appetites and importation of similar product ).
    There's no business case for expanding oil pipelines to the US for US consumption. Oil's market share in the US--as with all developed nations--has peaked. This is from the American Petroleum Institute, i.e. the oil lobby, themselves:


    Source: http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-g...imers/offshore

    Oil is the blue at the bottom: notice the flat line and the overall declining market share.

    The only potential business case--and even that is questionable--is for export to developing nations. Worse, regardless of the business case, exporting oil overseas is thoroughly incompatible with Canada's commitment to reduce greenhouse has emissions.

  8. #108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Hearing on Global that 80% of all the fuel in the Vancouver area comes from Alberta via Kinder Morgan. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Jeez
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Maybe it's time for Kinder Morgan to have equipment failures. Where they can't get enough pressure in the pipeline for it to get to B.C. Imagine if that 80% of oil was delayed how expensive the 20% left would be.
    I guess neither of you have been reading. This pipeline expansion has nothing to do with bringing oil to Vancouver. It's all about removing oil from Canada and sending it to Asia.
    Everyone knows this OffWhyte but we are trying to grow our industry here in Alberta. We are trying to export some of this 1.7 trillion barrel giant reserve of oil to make money, jobs for citizens, royalties for prov and fed govt to supply services and all the rest of it. Get with the program already. If your so against our oil industry and our mainstay here in this province maybe it's time for you to move to Ganges on Saltspring Island and mingle with the hippies.
    Either get on board with the oil lobby or get lost. Nice.

    Sure glad Albertans are so warm and welcoming.

  9. #109
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,563

    Default

    ^^ True & not true.

    Refineries aren't bought off the shelf; each is engineered to most effeciently refine oils of a certain weight.

    Some refineries in Texas (notably) were engineered to accept and process heavier oils - such as oil sands bitumen. However - lacking access to oil sands bitumen they purchased heavy oils from Venezuala.

    Since then, Venezuala has decided it's not going to suppy Yanquee refineries and they have had to look elsewhere (rumour has it they are getting heavy oils from China).

    So, if that's true, by not shipping bitumen to Texas by pipeline results in the Texans buying Chinese oil, we've succeeded in increasing GHG emissions - and by quiite a bit.

    The real issue is demand, not supply.

    This has nothing to do with GHG emmissions - it's soley about shutting down "the tarsands ..." (and achieving absolutely nothing to ease global GHG emmissions)
    ... gobsmacked

  10. #110
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Hearing on Global that 80% of all the fuel in the Vancouver area comes from Alberta via Kinder Morgan. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Jeez
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Maybe it's time for Kinder Morgan to have equipment failures. Where they can't get enough pressure in the pipeline for it to get to B.C. Imagine if that 80% of oil was delayed how expensive the 20% left would be.
    I guess neither of you have been reading. This pipeline expansion has nothing to do with bringing oil to Vancouver. It's all about removing oil from Canada and sending it to Asia.
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    I think we are all starting to realize that in the long run our best and only option for moving our product will be through oil producing friendlier states to the gulf. Dakotas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana etc. They understand the business and we can all work better together ( excluding our federal governments and other states and provinces that are all rainbows and unicorns regardless of their great appetites and importation of similar product ).
    There's no business case for expanding oil pipelines to the US for US consumption. Oil's market share in the US--as with all developed nations--has peaked. This is from the American Petroleum Institute, i.e. the oil lobby, themselves:


    Source: http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-g...imers/offshore

    Oil is the blue at the bottom: notice the flat line and the overall declining market share.

    The only potential business case--and even that is questionable--is for export to developing nations. Worse, regardless of the business case, exporting oil overseas is thoroughly incompatible with Canada's commitment to reduce greenhouse has emissions.
    Not to export TO the USA. To the gulf of mex and onto ships to china and wherever. By the looks of things it may become our best option. Where federal, provincial and state governments will allow, the pipeline companies will in turn figure out the routes to take to tidewater.

  11. #111

    Default

    ^Don't call them tar sands as the consistency of the oil Alberta get's out of the ground is not deemed as 'tar'.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  12. #112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Hearing on Global that 80% of all the fuel in the Vancouver area comes from Alberta via Kinder Morgan. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Jeez
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Maybe it's time for Kinder Morgan to have equipment failures. Where they can't get enough pressure in the pipeline for it to get to B.C. Imagine if that 80% of oil was delayed how expensive the 20% left would be.
    I guess neither of you have been reading. This pipeline expansion has nothing to do with bringing oil to Vancouver. It's all about removing oil from Canada and sending it to Asia.
    Everyone knows this OffWhyte but we are trying to grow our industry here in Alberta. We are trying to export some of this 1.7 trillion barrel giant reserve of oil to make money, jobs for citizens, royalties for prov and fed govt to supply services and all the rest of it. Get with the program already. If your so against our oil industry and our mainstay here in this province maybe it's time for you to move to Ganges on Saltspring Island and mingle with the hippies.
    Either get on board with the oil lobby or get lost. Nice.

    Sure glad Albertans are so warm and welcoming.
    Yes, we are warm and welcoming. We are also very generous. Why, so generous that billions of dollars from our province has been distributed throughout Canada in the way of transfer payments. In fact provinces that have received this largesse have been so grateful that not one of them has failed to cash the cheques.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  13. #113
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^Don't call them tar sands as the consistency of the oil Alberta get's out of the ground is not deemed as 'tar'.
    Oh, I know. I was being sarcastic.

    Tar isn't a natural substance to begin with - it's man made. Oil sands is the name chosen, though technically could be called bitumen sands.

    Just that for the latter, huge portions of the population would say, "huh?"
    ... gobsmacked

  14. #114

    Default

    ^Whew, yeah, glad you cleared that up.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  15. #115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Hearing on Global that 80% of all the fuel in the Vancouver area comes from Alberta via Kinder Morgan. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Jeez
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Maybe it's time for Kinder Morgan to have equipment failures. Where they can't get enough pressure in the pipeline for it to get to B.C. Imagine if that 80% of oil was delayed how expensive the 20% left would be.
    I guess neither of you have been reading. This pipeline expansion has nothing to do with bringing oil to Vancouver. It's all about removing oil from Canada and sending it to Asia.
    Everyone knows this OffWhyte but we are trying to grow our industry here in Alberta. We are trying to export some of this 1.7 trillion barrel giant reserve of oil to make money, jobs for citizens, royalties for prov and fed govt to supply services and all the rest of it. Get with the program already. If your so against our oil industry and our mainstay here in this province maybe it's time for you to move to Ganges on Saltspring Island and mingle with the hippies.
    Either get on board with the oil lobby or get lost. Nice.

    Sure glad Albertans are so warm and welcoming.
    So being that you are tarring Albertans with this maybe some disclosure on where in BC you are located or where you are from and where your allegiance is. Because its starting to read like its BC.

    I'm not sure what the purpose of your response is in anycase other than to discredit yourself and assure that you are not listened to.

    YOU are the one that generalized. That is really poor form. You took one comment and attempted defamation of Albertans with that.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  16. #116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    ^^ True & not true.

    Refineries aren't bought off the shelf; each is engineered to most effeciently refine oils of a certain weight.

    Some refineries in Texas (notably) were engineered to accept and process heavier oils - such as oil sands bitumen. However - lacking access to oil sands bitumen they purchased heavy oils from Venezuala.

    Since then, Venezuala has decided it's not going to suppy Yanquee refineries and they have had to look elsewhere (rumour has it they are getting heavy oils from China).

    So, if that's true, by not shipping bitumen to Texas by pipeline results in the Texans buying Chinese oil, we've succeeded in increasing GHG emissions - and by quiite a bit.

    The real issue is demand, not supply.

    This has nothing to do with GHG emmissions - it's soley about shutting down "the tarsands ..." (and achieving absolutely nothing to ease global GHG emmissions)
    Umm, hate to tell you this but Venezuela is still shipping oil to the US. Shipments up 21% in January compared to December (still down from a year ago and historical highs last decade).

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-o...-idUSKBN1FQ2YQ

    You're right in one regard: the real issue is demand--as in lack thereof in North America--not supply. Extra pipelines will not fix this. The only rationale for extra pipelines is to get oil out of North America.

    And it has everything to do with GHG emissions. Canada has committed to reducing its GHG emissions by 30% by 2030. Oil and gas represents about 26% (source) of current emissions; if oil and gas do not reduce GHG then that puts an undue burden on the rest of the economy and makes the target impossible to meet.

  17. #117

    Default

    ^Of course the emission targets will not be met. The air up there does not stop at the Canadian border. We will get the belching emissions from our neighbors to the south. Unfortunately there is no wall to be built to stop that. Maybe you should be taking the U S on as well in your quest. And good luck with that.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  18. #118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    ^^ True & not true.

    Refineries aren't bought off the shelf; each is engineered to most effeciently refine oils of a certain weight.

    Some refineries in Texas (notably) were engineered to accept and process heavier oils - such as oil sands bitumen. However - lacking access to oil sands bitumen they purchased heavy oils from Venezuala.

    Since then, Venezuala has decided it's not going to suppy Yanquee refineries and they have had to look elsewhere (rumour has it they are getting heavy oils from China).

    So, if that's true, by not shipping bitumen to Texas by pipeline results in the Texans buying Chinese oil, we've succeeded in increasing GHG emissions - and by quiite a bit.

    The real issue is demand, not supply.

    This has nothing to do with GHG emmissions - it's soley about shutting down "the tarsands ..." (and achieving absolutely nothing to ease global GHG emmissions)
    Umm, hate to tell you this but Venezuela is still shipping oil to the US. Shipments up 21% in January compared to December (still down from a year ago and historical highs last decade).

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-o...-idUSKBN1FQ2YQ

    You're right in one regard: the real issue is demand--as in lack thereof in North America--not supply. Extra pipelines will not fix this. The only rationale for extra pipelines is to get oil out of North America.

    And it has everything to do with GHG emissions. Canada has committed to reducing its GHG emissions by 30% by 2030. Oil and gas represents about 26% (source) of current emissions; if oil and gas do not reduce GHG then that puts an undue burden on the rest of the economy and makes the target impossible to meet.
    They might not be using Venezuelan oil for much longer
    Tillerson says US considers Venezuela oil sale restrictions

    https://www.seattlepi.com/news/world...e-12550462.php

  19. #119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    So being that you are tarring Albertans with this maybe some disclosure on where in BC you are located or where you are from and where your allegiance is. Because its starting to read like its BC.

    I'm not sure what the purpose of your response is in anycase other than to discredit yourself and assure that you are not listened to.

    YOU are the one that generalized. That is really poor form. You took one comment and attempted defamation of Albertans with that.
    LOL, I live in Edmonton. Just off of Whyte--go figure.

    This is not about allegiances; we're not watching a hockey game. I try to take a larger view of things. It's about what makes economic and environmental sense for Alberta, for Canada, and for the rest of the world. These pipelines to not make sense and because of that this nonsensical boycott makes no sense.

  20. #120
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    your facts may be accurate but they’re not as comparable/applicable as you imply.

    re 1 and 2, none of the spills you noted/discussed - not a single one - came from an oil tanker.

    re 3, again, the total number of tankers is irrelevant unless you want to posit all of them being involved in some sort of catastrophic incident.

    re 4 and 5, again, they’re in use already. if the emergency response capability isn’t in place and needs upgrading, that needs to take place whether or not the line is twinned doesn’t it?

    again, you’re illustrating my point, not countering it.
    I am most certainly not illustrating your point because your point is completely off the mark.

    Emergency management necessarily needs to account for the probability of an event: since the number of tankers is going up seven-fold the probability of a disaster is also going up seven fold. Hundred year events suddenly become likely to happen every fifteen years. You have also mistakenly assumed the entire emergency management process occurs post hoc, i.e. it's entirely focused on the response and recovery phases and you've neglected the prevention and preparedness phases. These phases in particular are highly dependent on probability. (See this source and references therein.)

    Moreover, increasing the number of tankers means that for the first time more than one tanker will be in the terminal at once. This increases the potential scale of a disaster. So it's not the risk of all four hundred tankers being involved that's important: it's the risk of two of three tankers being involved. This risk never existed before; current plans do not consider it. Now the risk is real and it needs to be planned for.
    ...
    as it stands now, there is either the capacity to deal with a spill or there isn't which is the point i was trying to make. it doesn't matter in the least whether it's a "one in a hundred year spill" or a "one in a fifteen year spill" - in either case that spill could take place tomorrow and the emergency management necessary to deal with it exists or doesn't and in either case it should. i'm not sure why you consider that "off the mark". is there now a "worst case scenario" which might involve two tankers instead of one? perhaps, but even then the risk of the spill completely emptying both isn't twice the risk of a single tanker emptying completely. i'm also not sure that your "worst case scenario" is any more likely than an earthquake that would see that entire hillslide and tank farm slide into the water. and again, that risk is also already there today...
    Again, you are focusing only on the response and recovery phases of emergency management and have not considered the prevention and preparedness phases.
    true - i don't believe i've ever represented any of my comments as focusing on any more than that. it is you who has attempted to apply them to overall risk management options and probability theory and, from my perspective, missed the point entirely in doing so.


    Considering all phases of emergency management, the reality of limited resources means it actually does matter whether a given event is expected to happen one in a hundred years or one in fifteen years. For a hundred year event resources would be relatively more focused on response and recovery since the event is actually quite unlikely to occur during a single planning cycle. Conversely, for a fifteen year event resources would be relatively more focused on prevention and preparedness: because you know such an event is likely to happen it makes sense to spend money to prevent it. The implication of this is that if what used to be a hundred year event suddenly becomes a fifteen year event the original plan would not be resource effective. The plan needs to be redone even though the actual disaster is the same (only its probability of occurrence has changed).

    Given that twinning Trans Mountain necessarily increases the probability of a disaster it only makes sense to make sure that the currently deployed emergency management resources are re-evaluated so that we know they are properly balanced among the prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery phases.

    Better yet would be to cancel the whole project--but that's another story.
    emphasis added...

    although, if existing emergency management is inadequate, cancelling the expansion won't change that will it? and if the agenda is to cancel the existing pipeline as well as the approved expansion, that might be a textbook option but isn't a real world one. in the real world, there aren't enough homes in alberta to house those that would be displaced in bc as a result.

    but at least it's an honest admission of your preferred agenda/response.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  21. #121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    So being that you are tarring Albertans with this maybe some disclosure on where in BC you are located or where you are from and where your allegiance is. Because its starting to read like its BC.

    I'm not sure what the purpose of your response is in anycase other than to discredit yourself and assure that you are not listened to.

    YOU are the one that generalized. That is really poor form. You took one comment and attempted defamation of Albertans with that.
    LOL, I live in Edmonton. Just off of Whyte--go figure.

    This is not about allegiances; we're not watching a hockey game. I try to take a larger view of things. It's about what makes economic and environmental sense for Alberta, for Canada, and for the rest of the world. These pipelines to not make sense and because of that this nonsensical boycott makes no sense.
    You take a larger view of things while discrediting that which you don't agree with, using gross generalizations, and such comments as "nonsensical boycott" in a thread that is the topic of the same.

    To me that doesn't seem open minded with respect to the specific conversation.

    Actually provincial allegiances obviously exist within confederation and provincial infighting and regionalism as well. It isn't ridiculous for the province of Alberta to engage in response to that any more than it is for BC to initiate the conflict.

    but I see that kcantor already got to your agenda above.
    Last edited by Replacement; 08-02-2018 at 04:35 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  22. #122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    your facts may be accurate but they’re not as comparable/applicable as you imply.

    re 1 and 2, none of the spills you noted/discussed - not a single one - came from an oil tanker.

    re 3, again, the total number of tankers is irrelevant unless you want to posit all of them being involved in some sort of catastrophic incident.

    re 4 and 5, again, they’re in use already. if the emergency response capability isn’t in place and needs upgrading, that needs to take place whether or not the line is twinned doesn’t it?

    again, you’re illustrating my point, not countering it.
    I am most certainly not illustrating your point because your point is completely off the mark.

    Emergency management necessarily needs to account for the probability of an event: since the number of tankers is going up seven-fold the probability of a disaster is also going up seven fold. Hundred year events suddenly become likely to happen every fifteen years. You have also mistakenly assumed the entire emergency management process occurs post hoc, i.e. it's entirely focused on the response and recovery phases and you've neglected the prevention and preparedness phases. These phases in particular are highly dependent on probability. (See this source and references therein.)

    Moreover, increasing the number of tankers means that for the first time more than one tanker will be in the terminal at once. This increases the potential scale of a disaster. So it's not the risk of all four hundred tankers being involved that's important: it's the risk of two of three tankers being involved. This risk never existed before; current plans do not consider it. Now the risk is real and it needs to be planned for.
    ...
    as it stands now, there is either the capacity to deal with a spill or there isn't which is the point i was trying to make. it doesn't matter in the least whether it's a "one in a hundred year spill" or a "one in a fifteen year spill" - in either case that spill could take place tomorrow and the emergency management necessary to deal with it exists or doesn't and in either case it should. i'm not sure why you consider that "off the mark". is there now a "worst case scenario" which might involve two tankers instead of one? perhaps, but even then the risk of the spill completely emptying both isn't twice the risk of a single tanker emptying completely. i'm also not sure that your "worst case scenario" is any more likely than an earthquake that would see that entire hillslide and tank farm slide into the water. and again, that risk is also already there today...
    Again, you are focusing only on the response and recovery phases of emergency management and have not considered the prevention and preparedness phases.
    true - i don't believe i've ever represented any of my comments as focusing on any more than that. it is you who has attempted to apply them to overall risk management options and probability theory and, from my perspective, missed the point entirely in doing so.


    Considering all phases of emergency management, the reality of limited resources means it actually does matter whether a given event is expected to happen one in a hundred years or one in fifteen years. For a hundred year event resources would be relatively more focused on response and recovery since the event is actually quite unlikely to occur during a single planning cycle. Conversely, for a fifteen year event resources would be relatively more focused on prevention and preparedness: because you know such an event is likely to happen it makes sense to spend money to prevent it. The implication of this is that if what used to be a hundred year event suddenly becomes a fifteen year event the original plan would not be resource effective. The plan needs to be redone even though the actual disaster is the same (only its probability of occurrence has changed).

    Given that twinning Trans Mountain necessarily increases the probability of a disaster it only makes sense to make sure that the currently deployed emergency management resources are re-evaluated so that we know they are properly balanced among the prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery phases.

    Better yet would be to cancel the whole project--but that's another story.
    emphasis added...

    although, if existing emergency management is inadequate, cancelling the expansion won't change that will it? and if the agenda is to cancel the existing pipeline as well as the approved expansion, that might be a textbook option but isn't a real world one. in the real world, there aren't enough homes in alberta to house those that would be displaced in bc as a result.

    but at least it's an honest admission of your preferred agenda/response.
    My "agenda" is not to shut down the existing pipeline. I never directly said that nor did I intentionally imply that. Please don't put up straw men; I've lurked here long enough to know that you're usually much better spoken than that.

  23. #123
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,042

    Default

    A couple of things about this really make me laugh, one is people on online forums stating emphatically that "there is no business case for new pipelines". Companies are spending hundreds of millions to design and apply for pipeline expansions, that they would do this without consulting offwhyte for his opinion is shocking. Don't the financial analysts at Kinder Morgan read Connect2Edmonton?
    Second, it absolutely galls me that BC lectures us on environmental responsibility. Take a look at the tank farms and refinery in Vancouver on google earth, there appears to be next to no secondary containment around the tanks or refinery. These were mandated in Alberta a generation ago. And these clowns lecture us.

  24. #124

    Default

    ^I sincerely hope that every business goes after B.C. to recover all their costs in regards to start up etc. and any court costs endured.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  25. #125
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    your facts may be accurate but they’re not as comparable/applicable as you imply.

    re 1 and 2, none of the spills you noted/discussed - not a single one - came from an oil tanker.

    re 3, again, the total number of tankers is irrelevant unless you want to posit all of them being involved in some sort of catastrophic incident.

    re 4 and 5, again, they’re in use already. if the emergency response capability isn’t in place and needs upgrading, that needs to take place whether or not the line is twinned doesn’t it?

    again, you’re illustrating my point, not countering it.
    I am most certainly not illustrating your point because your point is completely off the mark.

    Emergency management necessarily needs to account for the probability of an event: since the number of tankers is going up seven-fold the probability of a disaster is also going up seven fold. Hundred year events suddenly become likely to happen every fifteen years. You have also mistakenly assumed the entire emergency management process occurs post hoc, i.e. it's entirely focused on the response and recovery phases and you've neglected the prevention and preparedness phases. These phases in particular are highly dependent on probability. (See this source and references therein.)

    Moreover, increasing the number of tankers means that for the first time more than one tanker will be in the terminal at once. This increases the potential scale of a disaster. So it's not the risk of all four hundred tankers being involved that's important: it's the risk of two of three tankers being involved. This risk never existed before; current plans do not consider it. Now the risk is real and it needs to be planned for.
    ...
    as it stands now, there is either the capacity to deal with a spill or there isn't which is the point i was trying to make. it doesn't matter in the least whether it's a "one in a hundred year spill" or a "one in a fifteen year spill" - in either case that spill could take place tomorrow and the emergency management necessary to deal with it exists or doesn't and in either case it should. i'm not sure why you consider that "off the mark". is there now a "worst case scenario" which might involve two tankers instead of one? perhaps, but even then the risk of the spill completely emptying both isn't twice the risk of a single tanker emptying completely. i'm also not sure that your "worst case scenario" is any more likely than an earthquake that would see that entire hillslide and tank farm slide into the water. and again, that risk is also already there today...
    Again, you are focusing only on the response and recovery phases of emergency management and have not considered the prevention and preparedness phases.
    true - i don't believe i've ever represented any of my comments as focusing on any more than that. it is you who has attempted to apply them to overall risk management options and probability theory and, from my perspective, missed the point entirely in doing so.


    Considering all phases of emergency management, the reality of limited resources means it actually does matter whether a given event is expected to happen one in a hundred years or one in fifteen years. For a hundred year event resources would be relatively more focused on response and recovery since the event is actually quite unlikely to occur during a single planning cycle. Conversely, for a fifteen year event resources would be relatively more focused on prevention and preparedness: because you know such an event is likely to happen it makes sense to spend money to prevent it. The implication of this is that if what used to be a hundred year event suddenly becomes a fifteen year event the original plan would not be resource effective. The plan needs to be redone even though the actual disaster is the same (only its probability of occurrence has changed).

    Given that twinning Trans Mountain necessarily increases the probability of a disaster it only makes sense to make sure that the currently deployed emergency management resources are re-evaluated so that we know they are properly balanced among the prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery phases.

    Better yet would be to cancel the whole project--but that's another story.
    emphasis added...

    although, if existing emergency management is inadequate, cancelling the expansion won't change that will it? and if the agenda is to cancel the existing pipeline as well as the approved expansion, that might be a textbook option but isn't a real world one. in the real world, there aren't enough homes in alberta to house those that would be displaced in bc as a result.

    but at least it's an honest admission of your preferred agenda/response.
    My "agenda" is not to shut down the existing pipeline. I never directly said that nor did I intentionally imply that. Please don't put up straw men; I've lurked here long enough to know that you're usually much better spoken than that.
    if that’s not what you meant by “better yet would be to cancel the whole project” and what you meant by “cancelling the whole project” only meant cancelling the expansion/twinning, then i misunderstood and apologize. having said that, while it’s true you didn’t “directly say that”, “that” was not an unreasonable inference of what you did say in the context of your overall posting.
    Last edited by kcantor; 08-02-2018 at 10:55 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  26. #126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    if that’s not what you meant by “better yet would be to cancel the whole project” and what you meant by “cancelling the whole project” only meant cancelling the expansion/twinning, then i misunderstood and apologize. having said that, while it’s true you didn’t “directly say that”, “that” was not an unreasonable inference of what you did say in the context of your overall posting.
    Thank you, and I can appreciate that when multiple posts are flying around and the rhetoric is becoming increasingly heated that it can be difficult to appreciate somebody's underlying motives.

    My motives or aspirations are certainly not to shut down the oil sands. Rather, my motives are to move to a more sustainable use of this precious resource.

    For too long in this province has the narrative been that the oil companies are the sole arbiter of how much and how quickly this precious non-renewable resource should be extracted. It seems to have been forgotten that the right to develop this resource was only leased to them by the Government of Alberta. As such it is in fact the Government of Alberta, and so the citizens of Alberta, who retain the legal and moral authority to determine limits as to how quickly this resource is to be depleted. This right of the citizens of Alberta is in fact enshrined in our national constitution where section 92A reads (in part--emphasis added):

    92A. (1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to (a) exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province; (b) development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom;
    (Source: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/c...ge-4.html#h-20)

    So the oil companies, while having been leased rights to development, have not been leased exclusive rights to determine how much and how fast. That is up to the citizens of Alberta to decide. And it is my firm belief that the limits we decide upon need to take into consideration the overwhelming evidence that climate change is linked to GHG emissions; that in accordance to this Canada has acknowledged its responsibility to reduce GHG emissions and has pledged to the international community through the Paris agreement to do so; and that reducing GHG emissions necessarily requires all segments of the economy to change including oil and gas.

    The limits decided upon by the citizens of Alberta also need to acknowledge that oil and gas is an important part of our economy, that oil companies have their right to development and an expectation of a return on their investments, and that access to fossil fuel energy is, for the medium term at least, critical to the functioning of our society. That is why these limits need to be reasonable: shutting down the oil sands altogether would not be reasonable.

    Canada can thus achieve our commitments and maintain our society by placing reasonable limits on how this resource is developed--just as we need to place reasonable limits on other sectors of the economy. Might this cause some hardship? Yes, but it also creates opportunity such as renewable resources and other components of a post-carbon economy. Might this hardship be unduly borne by Alberta? Only if Alberta clings steadfastly to the mantra that oil and gas is our only lifeblood. However, if Alberta seeks to explore the new opportunities so created then Alberta need not unduly bear any hardship.

    So I'm not saying Alberta should shut the oil sands down. I am saying Alberta needs to begin a process of transition. Not allowing this pipeline expansion is a reasonable first step in this direction.

  27. #127

    Default

    ^Thank you for clarifying your stance on this better, and without mocking views of the topic of this thread.

    However, much of what you have posted in this thread is not the topic of this thread. You have gone quite far into a sidebar argument that has very little, or nothing to do with the thread.

    Perhaps a different thread?

    Finally, "agenda" may not fit, in fairness, but certainly you have a missive, and that is to limit O & G and to transition economy. Fine, but again that really isn't the topic of the thread.
    Last edited by Replacement; 09-02-2018 at 11:24 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  28. #128

    Default

    Here’s an irony:

    A decade or so ago Notley wanted to slow down the rapid pace of oil sands development because the sector was putting strains on infrastructure and services (creating school shortages etc), but the industry ran ahead and built more capacity than it can today optimally export to maximize profits. So now Notley is the one having to deal with the fix after they ignored her ‘opposition party’ voice.

  29. #129

    Default

    ^ Accurate, but in a positive vein its to her credit, even her opponents saying that, that she is fighting so hard for an industry that is vital to Albertans and to the economy here and that any fears that the NDP would be the ones to dismantle the O & G were unfounded.

    Rachel being responsible, while being NDP. She's increasingly prudent, and populist. Good for her.

    Its interesting in the thread that its noted that the BC premier HAS to do oppose the pipeline due to the Green Party alignment. But for Notley its no less required for her to win this one or she is sunk, and for her the election is probably coming sooner.

    She needs the pipeline expansion as much as anybody. That's perhaps the greatest irony.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  30. #130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ^Thank you for clarifying your stance on this better, and without mocking views of the topic of this thread.

    However, much of what you have posted in this thread is not the topic of this thread. You have gone quite far into a sidebar argument that has very little, or nothing to do with the thread.

    Perhaps a different thread?

    Finally, "agenda" may not fit, in fairness, but certainly you have a missive, and that is to limit O & G and to transition economy. Fine, but again that really isn't the topic of the thread.
    Fair to say I have a missive or whatever. I have no objection to a new thread or maybe this other one here:

    Trudeau Approves 2 Pipelines
    Last edited by OffWhyte; 09-02-2018 at 03:04 PM. Reason: Fixed link to alternate thread

  31. #131

    Default

    So, anyone know of any Albertan planning on selling their BC property(s)?

    Maybe Albertans need to start raising the point that all Albertans should be dumping their BC condos and buying property in Alberta, and so start paying property taxes back into the local-low-tax-wealth-enabling Alberta economy where they made the money for the property purchase in the first place. (That or tax people more upfront in the knowledge that they are just going to take the money and run. Moreover they likely argued that the low taxes were necessary to build the Alberta economy. In this case BC reaps the future construction benefits, the lumber sales, the jobs, the years of taxes, vacation and/or retirement spending, etc. )
    Last edited by KC; 11-02-2018 at 01:07 PM.

  32. #132
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,766

    Default

    All Kinder Morgan has to do is shut down the existing pipeline "for maintenance." Most of the lower mainland gets its fuel from the existing pipeline already, if Alberta really wants to play hard ball with BC. How long can the lower mainland go without fuel?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  33. #133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    So, anyone know of any Albertan planning on selling their BC property(s)?

    Maybe Albertans need to start raising the point that all Albertans should be dumping their BC condos and buying property in Alberta, and so start paying property taxes back into the local-low-tax-wealth-enabling Alberta economy where they made the money for the property purchase in the first place. (That or tax people more upfront in the knowledge that they are just going to take the money and run. Moreover they likely argued that the low taxes were necessary to build the Alberta economy. In this case BC reaps the future construction benefits, the lumber sales, the jobs, the years of taxes, vacation and/or retirement spending, etc. )
    I have raised that point. Most people would not be inclined to do that however. Nor is my stance inconsistent. I would never buy BC property in the first place as I have more of a belief of helping the local economy, Alberta economy first and foremost. To the same end I NEVER cross border shop and can't understand how people are so casual about doing such things, and spending so much of their money elsewhere and not realizing how that impacts local economy. I don't snowbird either and have no intention of doing so for the same reasons.

    It seems people want an economy, but aren't prepared to do too much to help it along in terms of being faithful consumers to that local economy.

    One of the chief problems in consumer spending in the regional economy is such a large influx of people that come here to earn wealth, not necessarily spend it here and have no connection with the place. People, lots of them, that work here their entire life and spend their retirement elsewhere and always plan to. Theres costs in all those decisions for the local economy.

    I would be less inclined to think this way though if Canadian interprovincial politics wasn't so darned partisan and non cooperative. If a confederation doesn't want to act like one than my behavior will reflect that. i'm an Edmontonian first, and an Albertan. Just how I perceive it.
    Last edited by Replacement; 11-02-2018 at 02:33 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  34. #134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Here’s an irony:

    A decade or so ago Notley wanted to slow down the rapid pace of oil sands development because the sector was putting strains on infrastructure and services (creating school shortages etc), but the industry ran ahead and built more capacity than it can today optimally export to maximize profits. So now Notley is the one having to deal with the fix after they ignored her ‘opposition party’ voice.
    Everybody is 100% correct about the past but nobody is anywhere close to that predicting the future. I don't think there is any provincial government that has a crystal ball to predict what is going to happen. If they did we would be in a lot better shape.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  35. #135

    Default

    Yes. Nothing from BC has come into our home for two months. Will not buy cherries, peaches, produce or any bedding out plants or wine from any of their producers. We have had many wonderful vacations in BC over the past 30 years. Will never go again. As Albertan's we should all be doing our part to save our economy.

  36. #136

    Default

    It is just not our economy, but the entire country. The oilsands has bennifited many BC trades worker who came here to work.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  37. #137

    Default

    I guess everyone is suggesting shutting down all the other pipelines that run through BC then. After all, the products they carry are either used there or support the ports.

  38. #138

    Default

    I'll be heading to Vancouver, Victoria & Nanaimo this summer. Not letting this provincial p!ssing contest get in the way of enjoying myself.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  39. #139

    Default

    It may be a pissing contest, but that contest could devastate our economy. Since im part of that economy, i have to support my province. It is bad enough that Quebec, the biggest leech in our country, did this to us which we pay into their welfare; now, we have another province with many of it folks reaping the bennifit from us, and the are doing this? If they're so worried about the environment, why not stop their forest industry; why dont they stop the gas and oil extraction that they also do. Since they have OIL AND GAS ventures as we do, how do they move those products?
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  40. #140

    Default

    In the building boom Notley wanted a moratorium on our oil sands expansions to sort out all our infrastructure needs, and that was brilliance on her part as in hindsight, that might have kept Alberta from developing more production than than our pipeline infrastructure could get to markets.

    To Notley’s credit she’s ‘dealing the cards she was dealt’ and defending the ramping up of our export capability. Otherwise we essentially have significant standard investment in Alberta. With Federal approval of a pipeline this shouldn’t be an issue on her desk at all. She’s stepping up. (Similarly, she shut down coal but paid reparations in doing that.

    BC however isn’t. They seem to be trying to do an end run around existing regulations and rulings rather than seeking jurisdictional clarity going forward. On the other hand, I think on many other fronts (like the dangers being revealed from their massive industrial ocean-based-salmon-farming expansion) BC will say that that’s ‘water under the bridge’ and they’ll leave some or all in place (grandfather them) and say they will make improvements going forward.



    B.C.-Alberta truce is over and worst-case scenarios are ahead
    Les Leyne / Times Colonist

    APRIL 10, 2018 06:05 AM


    “They may think they can mess with Texas, but they can’t mess with Alberta,” Notley said. If Alberta becomes an investor in the project, she warned, “we will be a significantly more determined investor than B.C. has dealt with to this point.”
    She accused Premier John Horgan of thinking he can “harass” investors and the company, and said British Columbians should be worried about what the fight does to the investment climate. Other unspecified moves are on the table. Notley said there are several strategies to ensure the pipeline is built. Alberta and the federal government are in close contact and she said Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is committed to seeing it built.
    All of which leaves Horgan facing increasing pressure, and a particular constraint in how he deals with it. He was crystal clear during the election campaign that the NDP would use “every tool in the toolbox” to kill the pipeline if elected. But the rhetoric changed when he took power, because B.C. is involved in the Federal Court of Appeal case challenging the approvals. (Opponents are batting 0 for 14 there so far.)

    Flatly restating his political goal now that he owns the toolbox could void a lot of arguments about the rule of law the new government is supposed to be following.

    He had a low-key response to the Kinder surprise on the weekend. He tried to stay nonchalant Monday, telling the house there’s no constitutional crisis, it’s just about some upset Texas shareholders.

    It’s about a lot more than that, and he knows it.

    http://www.vancourier.com/opinion/b-...ead-1.23261672
    Last edited by KC; 11-04-2018 at 09:08 AM.

  41. #141
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by muckle View Post
    Yes. Nothing from BC has come into our home for two months. Will not buy cherries, peaches, produce or any bedding out plants or wine from any of their producers. We have had many wonderful vacations in BC over the past 30 years. Will never go again.
    If BC starts to play ball, then you SHOULD actually start going there again. The idea of a boycott is that you withdraw business so that the other side will change their policies. There's no incentive for them to change if you're just gonna continue the boycott no matter what.

  42. #142
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,766
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I don't see this boycott being remotely effective.

    1. BC controls 100% of our Pacific Ocean access. Full stop. All shipments from Alberta to any Canadian west port go to BC. They know this and hold it as a trump card. always have. Always will. Unless the northern half breaks away and joins Alberta, expect this to forever be....
    2. The lower mainland holds all the vote in BC. Ok, not all, but enough to be the region that holds virtually all the cards. The GVRD owns BC.
    3. BC's current Administration's makeup is extremely ideologically bent. The NDP combined with Greens will spend OPM on principle until they no longer control OPM
    4. OPM (pronounced like opium) = other people's money
    5. If you take the time to poll/talk to the areas outside Lotusland, you'd quickly see they're on our side.
    6. To keep power, and OPM access, the Administration needs the Greens onside. The Greens hate oil.


    This, combined with a Federal Liberal patty that knows Alberta won't vote for it, but BC does...well...again Lotusland has clout.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  43. #143
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    I don't see this boycott being remotely effective.

    1. BC controls 100% of our Pacific Ocean access. Full stop. All shipments from Alberta to any Canadian west port go to BC. They know this and hold it as a trump card. always have. Always will. Unless the northern half breaks away and joins Alberta, expect this to forever be....
    2. The lower mainland holds all the vote in BC. Ok, not all, but enough to be the region that holds virtually all the cards. The GVRD owns BC.
    3. BC's current Administration's makeup is extremely ideologically bent. The NDP combined with Greens will spend OPM on principle until they no longer control OPM
    4. OPM (pronounced like opium) = other people's money
    5. If you take the time to poll/talk to the areas outside Lotusland, you'd quickly see they're on our side.
    6. To keep power, and OPM access, the Administration needs the Greens onside. The Greens hate oil.


    This, combined with a Federal Liberal patty that knows Alberta won't vote for it, but BC does...well...again Lotusland has clout.
    Further to that, Albertans are as addicted to BC vacation spots and real estate as British Columbians are to Alberta oil.

    Metro Vancouver does hold most of the cards. They're not scared of high oil prices. Gas was $1.57/L when I was down last week and no one blinked an eye. Unlike Edmonton and Calgary, you can actually get around Vancouver reasonably easily without a car. And those who do drive will pay the +$2/L it's headed for anyways. Prices will go up for a variety of goods, due to increased transport costs, but most goods in BC don't come from Alberta. And for most other things it's a quick trip across the border for cheap goods.

    The rest of BC is definitely not on the same plane as metro Vancouver, that is true. In my neck of the woods, the Okanagan and Cariboo most are in favour of the pipeline. There's a natural gas pipeline being built near our cabin in Interlakes by Spectra Energy, just east of 100 Mile House, and the local restaurants and pubs and hotels are quite happy having the extra bodies up there. There are a number of other existing pipelines pushing oil and gas and you wouldn't even know they are there. Even my folks who are more environmentally conscious than the average person see the benefit of carrying the oil by pipeline.

    But no, I'll still make the many trips to Vancouver that make living in Edmonton bearable, spend a ton of money at the local stores and restaurants near our lakefront retreat, and enjoy the oceanfront cottage we booked on Hornby Island this summer. BC is my home after all, and I'll continue to support it and the majority of BC'ers who have a much more realistic and pragmatic view than the minority of British Columbians and Albertans do.
    Last edited by 240GLT; 11-04-2018 at 11:14 AM.
    Parkdale

  44. #144

    Default

    Amen, 240!
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  45. #145

    Default

    I must have just watched the news and was in revenge mode. We may go back if this gets resolved without Alberta being screwed over again. OH. And if they stop pumping millions of gallons of raw sewage into OUR ocean every day. But they don't want to talk about that.

  46. #146
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,591

    Default

    I think Notley should turn off the taps, because Horgan is an *****.Abacus poll showed more people in BC agree with a pipeline, and three ignorant greens keep him in power. I won't spend money in BC if I don't have to.

  47. #147
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,766

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    I'll be heading to Vancouver, Victoria & Nanaimo this summer. Not letting this provincial p!ssing contest get in the way of enjoying myself.
    Good for you noodle. I have family near Nanaimo. My sister lives up the street in Campbell river brother lives in Duncan. Best time to visit the island is in August.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  48. #148
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,766

    Default

    I read somewhere that if Kinder Morgan shut the entire pipeline down the lower mainland would be in deep trouble.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  49. #149

    Default

    I went to boarding school on Vancouver Island, so I'm pretty familiar with it. Found out my godfather has moved back from Germany & is living in Nanaimo, plus my wife hasn't ever been to BC so I'd like to show her the Lower Mainland & the Island.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  50. #150
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    I read somewhere that if Kinder Morgan shut the entire pipeline down the lower mainland would be in deep trouble.
    Tough, then maybe Horgan would hear from them!

  51. #151

    Default

    It definitely would sent a strong message that BC is anti business. Does anyone know off hand if there was any oil spill with current the existing pipeline on that route from the past?
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  52. #152
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    It definitely would sent a strong message that BC is anti business. Does anyone know off hand if there was any oil spill with current the existing pipeline on that route from the past?
    One in 50 years. You would think they'd want a newer safer line..

  53. #153

    Default

    Thank you!
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  54. #154
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    It definitely would sent a strong message that BC is anti business. Does anyone know off hand if there was any oil spill with current the existing pipeline on that route from the past?
    One in 50 years. You would think they'd want a newer safer line..
    That is not correct. From Kinder Morgan's own website:

    Trans Mountain’s Spill History

    Since 1961, Trans Mountain has reported approximately 82 spills to the NEB. Click here for a table of spills we reported. Some of the incidents were below the reportable threshold.
    -69.5% of Trans Mountain’s past spills have occurred at pump stations or terminals. All of our pump stations and terminals are equipped with monitoring and spill containment systems to provide early detection and lessen impacts and ensure spilled volumes are contained on site. These facilities are rigorously maintained and inspected to meet NEB standards.


    The website also provides some links and information on the larger spills.

    https://www.transmountain.com/spill-history
    Parkdale

  55. #155

    Default

    I was curious with major impacted spills hence my inquisition from those with the life experience. I looked it up as well 240, but thank you for the upload!

    What has me curious now is what the extra cost would be to trench a 30 ft.wide and roughly 4' deep ditch along that route? Cover that up with heavy gauge poly where it would become a basin and catch any spills? Certainly it would have to be incorporated in a way where it does not interfere with wildlife and allow them easy access.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  56. #156

    Default

    How would you keep precipitation out of your oil-spill-prevention ditch?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  57. #157
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    The argument I am hearing is not so much the concern along the line itself, rather the potential impact of increased tanker traffic and the potential for a spill in BC's coastal waterways
    Parkdale

  58. #158

    Default

    Precipitation?
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  59. #159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Precipitation?
    Water that falls from the sky?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  60. #160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    The argument I am hearing is not so much the concern along the line itself, rather the potential impact of increased tanker traffic and the potential for a spill in BC's coastal waterways
    Now that you brought that up, im curious what the cost would be to reverse it back to the heavy crude prior to sea departure; and, is that even possible at a viable cost? It could be additional jobs for BC.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  61. #161
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,766
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post

    Further to that, Albertans are as addicted to BC vacation spots and real estate as British Columbians are to Alberta oil.

    (...)but most goods in BC don't come from Alberta. And for most other things it's a quick trip across the border for cheap goods.

    The rest of BC is definitely not on the same plane as metro Vancouver, that is true. In my neck of the woods, the Okanagan and Cariboo most are in favour of the pipeline. (...)

    (...) and I'll continue to support it and the majority of BC'ers who have a much more realistic and pragmatic view than the minority of British Columbians and Albertans do.
    I took these snips out as I agree...

    One trip to Blaine/Sumas/Linden and you will see easily that the cross border traffic is immense. Also, they tend to fill up post border. Port Roberts also gets a lot of gas savers crossing. ...and then hit Bellingham, or the Burlington outlet mall...lots of BC plates...

    The Okanogan...yup...very much in favour of the pipeline.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  62. #162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    I'll be heading to Vancouver, Victoria & Nanaimo this summer. Not letting this provincial p!ssing contest get in the way of enjoying myself.
    Good for you noodle. I have family near Nanaimo. My sister lives up the street in Campbell river brother lives in Duncan. Best time to visit the island is in August.
    Invite them to visit you in Alberta.

  63. #163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    The argument I am hearing is not so much the concern along the line itself, rather the potential impact of increased tanker traffic and the potential for a spill in BC's coastal waterways
    The science is behind the floating proposition so it could, and would, be be cleaned up fast.

    Spill from Hell: Diluted Bitumen | The Tyee

    Unlike conventional crude, diluted bitumen or “dilbit” is a mixture of unrefined tar that is often heavier than water and “diluent.” This is usually a cocktail of volatile solvents like naphtha or natural gas condensate that allows the thick bitumen to be pumped through the pipeline.

    A toxic cloud released

    The local residents and EPA responders near Kalamazoo quickly learned that bitumen and diluent do not stay together once released into the environment.

    Volatile portions of the diluent containing toxic fumes of benzene and toluene began off-gassing in the area, impacting the health of almost 60 per cent of the local population with symptoms such as nausea, dizziness, headaches, coughing and fatigue. Clean-up crews were issued respirators to protect them from toxic fumes....


    Sunken tar sinks to bottom

    As the lighter chemicals evaporated into the surrounding area, the bitumen portion began to sink to the bottom and become mixed with river sediments. Conventional clean-up equipment such as skimmers and oil booms proved useless in recovering the large amounts of submerged oil that now covers an area of river bottom estimated to be approximately 200 acres.

    “This was the first time the EPA or anyone has done a submerged cleanup of this magnitude,” Ralph Dollhopf, the EPA Incident Commander for the Kalamazoo spill told the local media.

    “I would never have expected... that we would have spent two or three times longer working on the submerged oil than surface oil. I don’t think anyone at the EPA anticipated that, I don’t think anyone at the state level anticipated that, I don’t think anyone in industry anticipated that.”

    In the absence of any previous experience in dealing with spilled Alberta bitumen, the EPA had to “write the book” on figuring out how to recover large amounts of oil that doesn’t float.

    Twenty months after the spill these expensive recovery efforts continue, and 30 miles of the Kalamazoo River impacted by the spill remain closed to swimming, boating, fishing or even wading for the foreseeable future. ...

    https://thetyee.ca/News/2012/03/05/Diluted-Bitumen/

    Kinder Morgan's Pipeline Puts B.C. In Peril. I Would Know, I Worked On It

    https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/romill...eb_a_23401126/



    Bitumen will float, Natural Resources Canada research shows | Vancouver Sun


    To the question of whether diluted bitumen sinks or floats when it hits water, the short answer is it floats, most of the time, according to a growing body of research being compiled by Natural Resources Canada scientists.

    Answering whether bitumen sinks or floats and how to clean it up are key concerns that have B.C. considering restrictions on increased shipments of the product through B.C. that put Kinder Morgan’s $7.4 billion Trans Mountain pipeline at risk.

    Researcher Heather Dettman, a senior scientist with Natural Resources Canada in Devon, Alta., is leading a team looking into some of those questions in research under the federal government’s world-class tanker safety program and ocean protection program. Postmedia caught up with her and a spokesman from Western Canada Marine Response Corp. to talk about answers.

    Q: What is diluted bitumen?

    ...

    Q: Does diluted bitumen float or sink when it hits the ocean?

    A: Dettman’s tests, between 2014 and now, using varying grades of diluted bitumen typical of oilsands production, shows that the material will float on the surface for up to three to four weeks, even under wave conditions that would cause conventional crude to mix in with the water column.



    http://vancouversun.com/news/local-n...research-shows

    Last edited by KC; 11-04-2018 at 04:50 PM.

  64. #164
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,766
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post

    Further to that, Albertans are as addicted to BC vacation spots and real estate as British Columbians are to Alberta oil.

    (...)but most goods in BC don't come from Alberta. And for most other things it's a quick trip across the border for cheap goods.

    The rest of BC is definitely not on the same plane as metro Vancouver, that is true. In my neck of the woods, the Okanagan and Cariboo most are in favour of the pipeline. (...)

    (...) and I'll continue to support it and the majority of BC'ers who have a much more realistic and pragmatic view than the minority of British Columbians and Albertans do.
    I took these snips out as I agree...

    One trip to Blaine/Sumas/Linden and you will see easily that the cross border traffic is immense. Also, they tend to fill up post border. Port Roberts also gets a lot of gas savers crossing. ...and then hit Bellingham, or the Burlington outlet mall...lots of BC plates...

    The Okanogan...yup...very much in favour of the pipeline.

    Just one of the many stories...cross border..;

    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  65. #165
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    255

    Default

    just wondering if there must be a rule book to capitalism all governments use. seems kinda juvenile. Must of skipped that class in high school. I think there might be a comparison in the shtick Donald has used against the rest of the world; that our government is trying to use. This is just an observation mind you .these tactics can only serve to divide us me thinks. just a thought.

  66. #166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    The argument I am hearing is not so much the concern along the line itself, rather the potential impact of increased tanker traffic and the potential for a spill in BC's coastal waterways
    The science is behind the floating proposition so it could, and would, be be cleaned up fast.

    Spill from Hell: Diluted Bitumen | The Tyee

    Unlike conventional crude, diluted bitumen or “dilbit” is a mixture of unrefined tar that is often heavier than water and “diluent.” This is usually a cocktail of volatile solvents like naphtha or natural gas condensate that allows the thick bitumen to be pumped through the pipeline.

    A toxic cloud released

    The local residents and EPA responders near Kalamazoo quickly learned that bitumen and diluent do not stay together once released into the environment.

    Volatile portions of the diluent containing toxic fumes of benzene and toluene began off-gassing in the area, impacting the health of almost 60 per cent of the local population with symptoms such as nausea, dizziness, headaches, coughing and fatigue. Clean-up crews were issued respirators to protect them from toxic fumes....


    Sunken tar sinks to bottom

    As the lighter chemicals evaporated into the surrounding area, the bitumen portion began to sink to the bottom and become mixed with river sediments. Conventional clean-up equipment such as skimmers and oil booms proved useless in recovering the large amounts of submerged oil that now covers an area of river bottom estimated to be approximately 200 acres.

    “This was the first time the EPA or anyone has done a submerged cleanup of this magnitude,” Ralph Dollhopf, the EPA Incident Commander for the Kalamazoo spill told the local media.

    “I would never have expected... that we would have spent two or three times longer working on the submerged oil than surface oil. I don’t think anyone at the EPA anticipated that, I don’t think anyone at the state level anticipated that, I don’t think anyone in industry anticipated that.”

    In the absence of any previous experience in dealing with spilled Alberta bitumen, the EPA had to “write the book” on figuring out how to recover large amounts of oil that doesn’t float.

    Twenty months after the spill these expensive recovery efforts continue, and 30 miles of the Kalamazoo River impacted by the spill remain closed to swimming, boating, fishing or even wading for the foreseeable future. ...

    https://thetyee.ca/News/2012/03/05/Diluted-Bitumen/

    Kinder Morgan's Pipeline Puts B.C. In Peril. I Would Know, I Worked On It

    https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/romill...eb_a_23401126/



    Bitumen will float, Natural Resources Canada research shows | Vancouver Sun


    To the question of whether diluted bitumen sinks or floats when it hits water, the short answer is it floats, most of the time, according to a growing body of research being compiled by Natural Resources Canada scientists.

    Answering whether bitumen sinks or floats and how to clean it up are key concerns that have B.C. considering restrictions on increased shipments of the product through B.C. that put Kinder Morgan’s $7.4 billion Trans Mountain pipeline at risk.

    Researcher Heather Dettman, a senior scientist with Natural Resources Canada in Devon, Alta., is leading a team looking into some of those questions in research under the federal government’s world-class tanker safety program and ocean protection program. Postmedia caught up with her and a spokesman from Western Canada Marine Response Corp. to talk about answers.

    Q: What is diluted bitumen?

    ...

    Q: Does diluted bitumen float or sink when it hits the ocean?

    A: Dettman’s tests, between 2014 and now, using varying grades of diluted bitumen typical of oilsands production, shows that the material will float on the surface for up to three to four weeks, even under wave conditions that would cause conventional crude to mix in with the water column.



    http://vancouversun.com/news/local-n...research-shows

    And what was the reaction of the pipeline control room, right here in Edmonton, when they registered a sudden drop in pressure from the spill? They increased the flow. And Enbridge has been called back numerous time after they declared the spill was cleaned up.

    And let's not forget the spill up at Fort Mac a couple of years ago that despite being a brand new, state of the art pipeline, was discovered by a worker stumbling across it. With all the high tech gear, they still had no idea.

  67. #167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by piglet View Post
    just wondering if there must be a rule book to capitalism all governments use. seems kinda juvenile. Must of skipped that class in high school. I think there might be a comparison in the shtick Donald has used against the rest of the world; that our government is trying to use. This is just an observation mind you .these tactics can only serve to divide us me thinks. just a thought.
    Yup. ...and BC knew that.

  68. #168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    The argument I am hearing is not so much the concern along the line itself, rather the potential impact of increased tanker traffic and the potential for a spill in BC's coastal waterways
    The science is behind the floating proposition so it could, and would, be be cleaned up fast.

    Spill from Hell: Diluted Bitumen | The Tyee

    Unlike conventional crude, diluted bitumen or “dilbit” is a mixture of unrefined tar that is often heavier than water and “diluent.” This is usually a cocktail of volatile solvents like naphtha or natural gas condensate that allows the thick bitumen to be pumped through the pipeline.

    A toxic cloud released

    The local residents and EPA responders near Kalamazoo quickly learned that bitumen and diluent do not stay together once released into the environment.

    Volatile portions of the diluent containing toxic fumes of benzene and toluene began off-gassing in the area, impacting the health of almost 60 per cent of the local population with symptoms such as nausea, dizziness, headaches, coughing and fatigue. Clean-up crews were issued respirators to protect them from toxic fumes....


    Sunken tar sinks to bottom

    As the lighter chemicals evaporated into the surrounding area, the bitumen portion began to sink to the bottom and become mixed with river sediments. Conventional clean-up equipment such as skimmers and oil booms proved useless in recovering the large amounts of submerged oil that now covers an area of river bottom estimated to be approximately 200 acres.

    “This was the first time the EPA or anyone has done a submerged cleanup of this magnitude,” Ralph Dollhopf, the EPA Incident Commander for the Kalamazoo spill told the local media.

    “I would never have expected... that we would have spent two or three times longer working on the submerged oil than surface oil. I don’t think anyone at the EPA anticipated that, I don’t think anyone at the state level anticipated that, I don’t think anyone in industry anticipated that.”

    In the absence of any previous experience in dealing with spilled Alberta bitumen, the EPA had to “write the book” on figuring out how to recover large amounts of oil that doesn’t float.

    Twenty months after the spill these expensive recovery efforts continue, and 30 miles of the Kalamazoo River impacted by the spill remain closed to swimming, boating, fishing or even wading for the foreseeable future. ...

    https://thetyee.ca/News/2012/03/05/Diluted-Bitumen/

    Kinder Morgan's Pipeline Puts B.C. In Peril. I Would Know, I Worked On It

    https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/romill...eb_a_23401126/



    Bitumen will float, Natural Resources Canada research shows | Vancouver Sun


    To the question of whether diluted bitumen sinks or floats when it hits water, the short answer is it floats, most of the time, according to a growing body of research being compiled by Natural Resources Canada scientists.

    Answering whether bitumen sinks or floats and how to clean it up are key concerns that have B.C. considering restrictions on increased shipments of the product through B.C. that put Kinder Morgan’s $7.4 billion Trans Mountain pipeline at risk.

    Researcher Heather Dettman, a senior scientist with Natural Resources Canada in Devon, Alta., is leading a team looking into some of those questions in research under the federal government’s world-class tanker safety program and ocean protection program. Postmedia caught up with her and a spokesman from Western Canada Marine Response Corp. to talk about answers.

    Q: What is diluted bitumen?

    ...

    Q: Does diluted bitumen float or sink when it hits the ocean?

    A: Dettman’s tests, between 2014 and now, using varying grades of diluted bitumen typical of oilsands production, shows that the material will float on the surface for up to three to four weeks, even under wave conditions that would cause conventional crude to mix in with the water column.



    http://vancouversun.com/news/local-n...research-shows

    And what was the reaction of the pipeline control room, right here in Edmonton, when they registered a sudden drop in pressure from the spill? They increased the flow. And Enbridge has been called back numerous time after they declared the spill was cleaned up.

    And let's not forget the spill up at Fort Mac a couple of years ago that despite being a brand new, state of the art pipeline, was discovered by a worker stumbling across it. With all the high tech gear, they still had no idea.
    Are you denying that the science is correct?

    Or that humans can act as theory would have them react?

  69. #169

    Default

    Not at all. Just pointing out that pipelines aren't nearly as spill free as the companies would like us to believe and that when spills do happen, quite often it's actually made worse by the same companies. And when it comes time to clean up, it's never back to the way it was. You can overturn rocks in Prince William Sound and find oil left by the Exxon Valdez nearly 30 years ago. You spill on the BC coast and they're the ones that are going to have to live with the results.

  70. #170
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,591

    Default

    http://business.financialpost.com/ne...untain-fallout

    Horgan will be toast soon imho. Election time in BC perhaps..lol
    The business community isn't happy with their government..

  71. #171
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,042

    Default

    These clowns have the gall to lecture others about environmental responsibility.
    https://www.thestar.com/vancouver/20...e-country.html
    It works out to 48 million cubic meters of untreated sewage. And this doesn't count the 100% of Victoria's sewage that enters the ocean. (yes I know they're building a treatment plant, Edmonton's has been operating well over 50 years)
    It makes a person want to boycott BC salmon, and not for economic reasons.

  72. #172

    Default

    I believed Victoria finally started to treat its sewage. Is it still not operational?




    http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...c-b8ab80edfd4b

    Yes, anti-pipeline Vancouver really is North America’s largest exporter of coal
    A city deadset against expanding petroleum exports seems to have few qualms about other fossil fuels
    By
    Tristin Hopper
    Last edited by KC; 12-04-2018 at 06:44 PM.

  73. #173
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,766

    Default

    This would never happen in a Christie Clarke Government:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...mier-1.4137867
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  74. #174
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    This would never happen in a Christie Clarke Government:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...mier-1.4137867
    Christy Clark is a big reason why the current BC government is in place.
    Parkdale

  75. #175
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,766

    Default

    Wait for it........its called an election. Clark was in favour of the pipeline, which was the downfall of her campaign.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  76. #176
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Wait for it........its called an election. Clark was in favour of the pipeline, which was the downfall of her campaign.
    It's funny, I often say that Albertans have no clue what really goes on in BC. You're living proof of that, no doubt.

    Clark and the BC Liberals failure in the 2017 election had little to do with the pipeline

    http://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-...clarks-legacy/
    Parkdale

  77. #177

    Default

    I'm not sure if the pipeline was even in the top 10 issues BC voters were concerned about in the last election. It might have been a referendum on Christie Clark, but I don't think it was one on pipelines.

  78. #178
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,766

    Default

    I lived in Coquitlam up to 1978. My family is on the island. I've been out of BC politics since fundraising for Clark so its been quite awhile.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  79. #179

    Default

    Danielle Smith: Exposing B.C.’s environmental hypocrisy

    By Danielle Smith
    Radio Host 770 CHQR


    https://globalnews.ca/news/4141162/d...mpression=true

  80. #180

    Default

    All BC is trying to do is bartering for their share that they feel is what they deserve. I just wish they would come out truthfully.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  81. #181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Danielle Smith: Exposing B.C.’s environmental hypocrisy

    By Danielle Smith
    Radio Host 770 CHQR

    https://globalnews.ca/news/4141162/d...mpression=true
    I would say to some extent Alberta and Canada is the victim of BC's currently dysfunctional politics. The previous BC government was ok with the pipeline provided if it met certain conditions (which they said it did) and the NDP would probably not fight it too much if it was not a minority government that relied on the support of 3 Green MLAs to stay in power who will NEVER support it.

    So hypocrisy yes - some raw sewage ok, LNG exports ok, coal exports ok, but oil is demonized. Mostly it is dysfunctional provincial politics.

    Recent polls show approximately as many people in BC strongly support the pipeline as oppose it (only 1% less) and overall more people across BC support it than oppose it. This is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

  82. #182

    Default

    LNG converts to vapour and drifts away. Coal stays in solid form and is relatively easy to remove. Oil either floats and drifts, coating beaches and animals or it sinks and kills fish and bottom dwellers. Either way, cleaning up an oil spill is much more difficult than dealing with a spill of LNG or coal.

  83. #183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    LNG converts to vapour and drifts away. Coal stays in solid form and is relatively easy to remove. Oil either floats and drifts, coating beaches and animals or it sinks and kills fish and bottom dwellers. Either way, cleaning up an oil spill is much more difficult than dealing with a spill of LNG or coal.
    A lot of hysteria about something that is very unlikely to happen. All those tankers going by Vancouver already every day from Alaska to Washington state seem to have no problems. Technology and practice has improved a lot in the last ten to twenty years so tanker oil spills are very rare now, in spite of all the increased tanker traffic.

  84. #184

    Default

    It's not just the tankers, although there will be a lot more of them with this pipeline. It's also the pipelines and the tanks. Oil companies don't have the best records about detecting and reporting spills, to say nothing about cleaning up the resultant mess.

    But, then again, it's not our coast, is it?

  85. #185
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,766

    Default

    I thought our own Greenpeace poster boy Mike Hudema would be all over this controversy.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  86. #186
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,766
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I think he is...I recall seeing an interview with him at one of the protests.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  87. #187
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,591

    Default

    Effin Trudeau, flying all the way back from Peru( on what, air?) And nothing has changed! Turn the tap OFF, Notley have some balls!!!!!!

    Nothing by world salad. Why doesn't the media cover the chiefs that want this pipeline?

    Ugh!

  88. #188

    Default

    Why not reroute the pipeline down to the states and then to Washington state? They'd love it there, right?

  89. #189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Why not reroute the pipeline down to the states and then to Washington state? They'd love it there, right?
    Do you drive at all?
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  90. #190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    It's not just the tankers, although there will be a lot more of them with this pipeline. It's also the pipelines and the tanks. Oil companies don't have the best records about detecting and reporting spills, to say nothing about cleaning up the resultant mess.

    But, then again, it's not our coast, is it?
    Should we just shutdown the ports? What if a container ship leaks Bunker C? There will always be risk of environmental damage in our modern civilized world, it can only be avoided 100% if we go back to living in caves.

  91. #191

    Default

    Somehow we're managing to build Keystone down to the Gulf of Mexico. You're saying it's impossible to build a pipeline to Seattle without going through BC?

  92. #192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by borntohula View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    It's not just the tankers, although there will be a lot more of them with this pipeline. It's also the pipelines and the tanks. Oil companies don't have the best records about detecting and reporting spills, to say nothing about cleaning up the resultant mess.

    But, then again, it's not our coast, is it?
    Should we just shutdown the ports? What if a container ship leaks Bunker C? There will always be risk of environmental damage in our modern civilized world, it can only be avoided 100% if we go back to living in caves.
    There's a difference between a tanker leaking from it's fuel tank and from it's cargo hold. Orders of magnitude more.

    Ever been up to Price William Sound in Alaska? Pick up a rock and find yourself some oil from the Exxon Valdez. But, as I said earlier, it's not our coast, is it? Foul the BC coast and it's their problem, not ours.

  93. #193
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,766

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    Effin Trudeau, flying all the way back from Peru( on what, air?) And nothing has changed! Turn the tap OFF, Notley have some balls!!!!!!

    Nothing by world salad. Why doesn't the media cover the chiefs that want this pipeline?

    Ugh!
    I'm using an analogy here but during a police investigation, your not allowed to talk to the press. Or in some cases shut down operations while the investigation is underway. in this case, if it doesn't cost too much for Kinder Morgan, shut down their whole Western Canada pipeline. BC would quickly change its tune.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  94. #194
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,766

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Somehow we're managing to build Keystone down to the Gulf of Mexico. You're saying it's impossible to build a pipeline to Seattle without going through BC?
    Any such pipeline would need to go through Montana and Idaho. Everyone gets a cut. Besides the US will soon if they aren't already be free from foreign oil.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  95. #195

    Default

    Keystone Xl goes through Saskatchewan, Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. I seem to recall people arguing in favour of that one. Suddenly Montana and Idaho is too much?


  96. #196
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,766

    Default

    Is the Keystone pipeline already built? I thought it wasn't to get underway until next year.

    http://fortune.com/2018/01/18/keysto...eline-support/

    It took 10 years to get Keystone even this far.

    Thanks for the nice drawing though.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  97. #197

    Default

    Part of the Keystone is built. Keystone XL is the new one.

  98. #198
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Why not reroute the pipeline down to the states and then to Washington state? They'd love it there, right?
    BC might love it, if Notley turned off the taps! oh they'll see how they really love it..

  99. #199
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,766

    Default

    ^ I think I heard in last nights news that Notley suggested turning off the taps might be possible.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  100. #200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by borntohula View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    It's not just the tankers, although there will be a lot more of them with this pipeline. It's also the pipelines and the tanks. Oil companies don't have the best records about detecting and reporting spills, to say nothing about cleaning up the resultant mess.

    But, then again, it's not our coast, is it?
    Should we just shutdown the ports? What if a container ship leaks Bunker C? There will always be risk of environmental damage in our modern civilized world, it can only be avoided 100% if we go back to living in caves.
    There's a difference between a tanker leaking from it's fuel tank and from it's cargo hold. Orders of magnitude more.

    Ever been up to Price William Sound in Alaska? Pick up a rock and find yourself some oil from the Exxon Valdez. But, as I said earlier, it's not our coast, is it? Foul the BC coast and it's their problem, not ours.
    Only one one thing changed since this pipeline was approved and that was the government in BC so the root of this problem is political, which is fairly obvious. I suspect the BC government is more concerned about its own survival depending on the support of three Green MLA's. Of course that sounds too self serving so lets get hysterical about oil spills instead, even though the facts don't support it. In the meantime tankers will continue to go by Vancouver largely unnoticed on the way to Washington state, regardless what happens with this pipeline.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •