Jump to content

      












Photo

Canadian oil / gas production and shipping


  • Please log in to reply
1402 replies to this topic

#81 sebberry

sebberry

    Resident Housekeeper

  • Moderator
  • 20,331 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 28 July 2012 - 03:09 PM

Or at least in sensitive ecosystems where the risk is high...

Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network

Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams

 


#82 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 28 July 2012 - 03:20 PM

^ Why take the risk? And who are you to judge what ecosystem is more important than another. You know how many living organisms there are in every cubic foot of soil? Complete ban.

Also, we need to limit tanker trucks to 30kmh, and have them twin-manned, two pilots, with a pilot vehicle 150m ahead too.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#83 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 11:26 AM

B.C. Enbridge pipeline critics say money not the issue
Latest spill proves Northern Gateway risks too great, they say


#84 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,316 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 11:30 AM

Why don't they double hull the pipeline? If you have the inner pressurized pipeline pushing the oil through and then a non pressurized secondary pipeline around it, if the sensors detect a loss of pressure due to a leak they automatically shut the flow down. Isolate the leak, drain the outer containment pipeline, remove the section of outer pipeline, repair the inner pipeline then reinstall the outer pipeline. Seems to me this would take care of the majority of the risk.


This is a good solution but I bet it would be expensive. I have often thought the same solution could be applied to hot water tanks in houses. Of course if the threat to property wasn't there than there would not be the fear of replacing on schedule...

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#85 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 12:28 PM

This is a good solution but I bet it would be expensive. I have often thought the same solution could be applied to hot water tanks in houses. Of course if the threat to property wasn't there than there would not be the fear of replacing on schedule...


What percentage replaces on schedule? They should install them as if they WILL leak at some time, and have the proper drain etc. Ditto washer/dryers above ground floor, esp. in multi-family homes.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#86 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 10:25 PM

The building of the pipeline could have more of an environmental impact on the lakes and streams than the pipeline itself.

The builders will need roads crossing streams and up and down mountains sides. We have seen the damage and the erosion caused by logging operation. If they are planning on burying the pipe, they will be blasting rock, and cutting down trees, and building bridges.

To help prevent leaks, there will need to be block valves at regular intervals to shut down the line if a breach occurs. These valves would need to have emergency power during an outage. Then there is the siesmic risk, landslide risks, flooding of streams and rivers, forest fires.

If it is inevitable that oil will be delivered to the West Coast, rail tanker cars to Prince Rupert may present fewer risks, and there would be no need to have tankers travelling 80 miles down the narrow channel to Kitimat.

#87 dasmo

dasmo
  • Member
  • 6,326 posts

Posted 31 July 2012 - 09:13 PM

:muching_out:

#88 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 07 August 2012 - 05:57 AM

Best-laid plans for oil spill response can't eliminate human error

What if the unexpected happens? What if the giant vessel hits a rock along B.C.'s coast line, and oil begins to seep into the water? Who springs into action first? Who takes on the cleanup, and who is responsible for making sure it is done properly?

Bruce Turnbull, with the Western Canada Marine Response Organization, said stormy weather conditions could delay response time, which is typically between six to 72 hours. "You think six hours (seems like a lot), but we don't drive there, we don't fly there, we have to be on the water and water speed isn't that great," he said

The administration questioned the company's pipeline integrity program, noting tests performed during the pipeline's construction in 1998 revealed defects and that the pipeline had also ruptured five years ago, spilling more than 200,000 litres of crude in Clark County, NV.

And in 2010, millions of litres of oil sand crude poured into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan state, affecting more than 50 kilometres of waterways and wetlands.

Former fisheries minister David Anderson said he isn't convinced the company has learned its lesson from the Michigan spill.
"If this is the record of this company which had led it to be described in the most critical terms by [the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board], then you just can't have the expectation they're going to do well somewhere else," he said.

Anderson also said the recent wave of federal budget cuts to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans means the Coast Guard has little capacity to deal with a massive oil spill on the West Coast.

Read more: http://www.vancouver...l#ixzz22ruiyWcc

#89 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 16 August 2012 - 10:47 PM

If the rail line to Prince Rupert is upgraded if it be inevitable that oil might be shipped by rail, then the 170 railcar trains carrying Saskatchewan potash could use this route to the sea. Those trains presently go to Vancouver or Portland.

more;
http://canpqlx.saskt...om/delivery.htm

#90 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 17 August 2012 - 09:55 AM

wtf?

An unlikely player has emerged with a proposal to build a $13-billion refinery near Kitimat that will process oilsands crude from Enbridge Corp.’s controversial Gateway Pipeline.

Victoria resident David Black, who owns 150 newspapers in Canada and the U.S., said this morning he will submit an environmental assessment application to the federal government immediately and spearhead a drive to raise investment capital for the “world-scale” refinery, which he says will produce 6,000 jobs over a six-year buildout and 3,000 long-term jobs in operation and spinoff employment.


Read more: http://www.timescolo...l#ixzz23pLT7Moc
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#91 sebberry

sebberry

    Resident Housekeeper

  • Moderator
  • 20,331 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 17 August 2012 - 10:10 AM

Let's not refine it in Alberta, let's pipe it across BC to refine it in Kitimat. Right.

Like I said in the crash thread, the heat is getting to people.....


.

Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network

Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams

 


#92 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 17 August 2012 - 10:30 AM

Let's not refine it in Alberta, let's pipe it across BC to refine it in Kitimat. Right.

Like I said in the crash thread, the heat is getting to people.....


.


You can't refine it at the wellhead, you need to get it near transportation routes for all the by-product. It's not like you take crude, and convert all 100% of it to gasoline, it doesn't work that way, you get all kinds of product left over, whether you want to or not. You also need to ADD products when refining, so you don't want to ship all that up north either.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#93 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 17 August 2012 - 12:57 PM

You can't refine it at the wellhead, you need to get it near transportation routes for all the by-product. It's not like you take crude, and convert all 100% of it to gasoline, it doesn't work that way, you get all kinds of product left over, whether you want to or not. You also need to ADD products when refining, so you don't want to ship all that up north either.


Wouldn't make more sense to have a refinery near Prince George so that you have more transportation route options? I think the customers that would benefit the most from a refinery at Kitimat would be the Asian market.

#94 http

http

    Data Sans Practicality

  • Member
  • 1,029 posts

Posted 18 August 2012 - 01:24 PM

Wouldn't make more sense to have a refinery near Prince George so that you have more transportation route options? I think the customers that would benefit the most from a refinery at Kitimat would be the Asian market.


Sinopec is partnering with Enbridge in efforts to build the NGP.
"Who are those slashdot people? They swept over like Mongol-Tartars." - F. E. Vladimirovna

#95 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 18 August 2012 - 02:24 PM

Wouldn't make more sense to have a refinery near Prince George so that you have more transportation route options? I think the customers that would benefit the most from a refinery at Kitimat would be the Asian market.


The best place for a refinery is somewhere between the oil pump and the market the finished product is delivered to. And I'm sure there are a million factors pulling it one way or another. Any way to slice it, Prince George is not good, but maybe as good as Kitimat. The Gulf refineries in Beaumont etc, are best placed. Near the source (Mexico, Venezuela and offshore sources) in an area that environmentalists care less about (south Texas) and close to markets big like California the Carolinas and Florida.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#96 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 10,861 posts

Posted 18 August 2012 - 06:24 PM

There is already one refinery in Prince George but it is quite small by comparison.
Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#97 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 18 August 2012 - 07:41 PM

There is already one refinery in Prince George but it is quite small by comparison.


Something like 12,000 bpd, and Burnaby is 55,000 bpd, and BC consumes 185,000 bpd.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#98 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 20 August 2012 - 07:31 AM

A Vancouver filmmaker has created an online response to the controversy over an animated video created by Enbridge that excludes about 1,000 square kilometres of islands from the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline and tanker route.

Read more, and see video: http://www.vancouver...l#ixzz246IRujfh

Enbridge video:
http://www.youtube.c...=2&feature=plcp

#99 renthefinn

renthefinn
  • Member
  • 571 posts

Posted 20 August 2012 - 07:40 PM

Damn, I hate the propaganda, on both sides... the video above didn't reference or show where the pipeline route actually would run, just some cool things in the general area, and the Enbridge elimination of the islands in Douglas Channel is disgraceful as well. Some major work needs to be done here, and I don't necessarily trust the Joint Panel Review will cover all the issues to everyone's satisfaction. More work should be undertaken to engage every party affected....

#100 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 03:45 PM

Enbridge protest planned for BC Legislature

The gathering will include 80 influential leaders from the business, First Nations, environmental, labour, academic and artistic communities from across Canada.

The sit-in is planned for October 22nd to oppose what opponents call "tar sands pipeline and tankers" and the threats they pose to the West Coast.

CFAX 1070 - Enbridge protest planned for BC Legislature - Victoria's News Authority

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Google (1)