1754 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

Why don't they just put out a sign saying "free oil" at the spill site, maybe run some ads on Craigslist advertising it, then people can come by and oil their bike chains, their door hinges etc.

[sebberry]

Good idea, except the spills always seem to be located in the middle of nowhere, where they go undetected and cause significant damage.

[Bingo]

Alberta oil spill looms large in B.C.

Plains Midstream accident comes as Northern Gateway makes its way through review process.

"Environmentalists' arguments are strengthened after a non-functioning pipeline leaked about 475,000 litres of sour crude near Sundre, Alta., on June 7, which flowed downstream in the Red Deer River to a reservoir."

"The people of B.C. probably aren't reassured either.'

"The spill will raise questions about whether our regulations governing pipelines are adequate or if they're being enforced.
Perhaps it will simply underline the fact of life that these "unfortunate impacts" are going to happen, no matter how good the laws or how stringent the enforcement."

Read more: http://www.vancouver...l#ixzz1xj4bkwWd

[VicHockeyFan]

A lot of talk about how the risks from this pipeline are way too much. No amount of safety features are worth it.

You'd think nobody knows we have a few pipelines now.



If it's so freaking risky for 2015 technology, why do we allow the current (1953) line into Vancouver, and allow the (1957) Westridge terminal to load ships with "dangerous" crude? Why don't we close it, pay off the pipeline company whatever it costs in compensation, as it's certainly worth the money isn't it? If it saves just one duck from getting oiled, it's worth spending $500B to close her down!

[gumgum]

I'll just put this here: http://www.canada.co...html?id=6910983

[VicHockeyFan]

I'll just put this here: http://www.canada.co...html?id=6910983

How do you propose we move oil then, gumgum? Put it all in truck tankers on the highways? That'd be safer, but costly. Should we keep using these old pipelines, or use new ones?

Did you read this part of the article?

With more than 2.5 million miles of pipeline running through this country — enough to circle the earth one hundred times

That darn lousy spill, just like the Gulf offshore leak/spill were real unfortunate, but a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of all oil shipped every year.

If environmentalists want to save BC, fine if they object to the pipeline, but they should also demand we stop using cars in this province. They are killing thousands every year from pollutants and crashes.

[sebberry]

Might be a tiny, tiny fraction of the oil piped about the country, but the consequenses of a spill along this pipeline route are pretty major.

[jklymak]

I think a legitimate criticism of this pipeline is not the pipeline itself, but the route the tankers would have to take from the terminus, which is pretty tortuous.

[gumgum]

How do you propose we move oil then, gumgum? Put it all in truck tankers on the highways? That'd be safer, but costly. Should we keep using these old pipelines, or use new ones?

Did you read this part of the article?



That darn lousy spill, just like the Gulf offshore leak/spill were real unfortunate, but a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of all oil shipped every year.

If environmentalists want to save BC, fine if they object to the pipeline, but they should also demand we stop using cars in this province. They are killing thousands every year from pollutants and crashes.

You are making a lot of incorrect assumptions about my opinion based an article I posted. An article about a deplorable incident that happened because of this corporation's negligence.
I never said I was against the idea of a pipeline. But it would take a lot to make me feel comfortable about it. And this Embridge incident makes very nervous.

Yes we need oil, but I AM NOT going hand that acceptance of it on a silver platter to any oil company only because we need the product.

Besides. No one has ever put a pricetag on BC's wilderness.

[VicHockeyFan]

Might be a tiny, tiny fraction of the oil piped about the country, but the consequenses of a spill along this pipeline route are pretty major.

Are you kidding? If we burned 20 miles on either side of the entire pipeline route only .01% of British Columbians would ever notice.

[gumgum]

I think a lot of people would notice.

[VicHockeyFan]

Why doesn't the federal government just step in here and say that in the event of a spill/disaster, that the province is only responsible for monitoring/assessment/coordination or something, whatever they do now, and some level of basic safeguards and remediation, and that the feds are responsible for everything else, with of course recourse to recover damages from the pipeline/shipping companies?

Then the cost danger is removed from the province. The "all the risk and little benefit" stance is reduced to no risk (financially) and some benefit.

I mean, every industrial activity has risk. Every 747 that flies over Richmond poses risk to crash to the ground killing lots of people. But the risk is accepted. Every BCF that takes on dangerous cargo has risk, we don't turn away from that. We have hundreds of miles of natural gas pipelines throughout our city, and you hit one right and it could explode in flames, but we accept the risk, and I even accept the risk even though my house doesn't get gas, but the line goes right through the end of my front yard.

[http]

While a pipeline may or may not be inevitable, Enbridge is not on the list of comanies to be trusted to manage a spill correctly.

[Baro]

Nationalize the entire industry and build local refineries, all powered by nuclear! I think that would be the least controversial strategy.

[snaptee]

I think a legitimate criticism of this pipeline is not the pipeline itself, but the route the tankers would have to take from the terminus, which is pretty tortuous.

No, it is the pipeline itself as well and specifically what it will carry. Dilbit is nasty **** and if it isn't clear from the Kalamazoo spill, it's almost impossible to clean up.

The proposed route runs over a lot of rugged land that is very active geologically, particularly west of Smithers. Since 1978, the LNG line that runs through the Hazelton Mountains has been severed three times.

It also crosses over 785 waterways, many of which are important fish bearing streams and many being in the geological zone mentioned above. The Morice river accounts for 40% of Chinook escapement for the ENTIRE Skeena watershed. The Bulkley and Morice combined account for 40% of summer steelhead escapement, again for the entire drainage.

[LJ]

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.

[sebberry]

Doesn't do anything for the tanker ship risk.

[Bingo]

Oil spill in Wisconsin forces Enbridge to shut down pipeline

 

CALGARY - Canada's Enbridge Inc. said an oil spill in Wisconsin had forced it to shut down part of the main pipeline system delivering Canadian crude to U.S. refiners on Friday, a fresh blow for a firm already facing fierce criticism from regulators.

Almost two years to the day after a major spill on a different part of its network, Enbridge shut down Line 14 after a leak that it estimated at around 1,200 barrels of oil. The 318,000 barrel per day (bpd) line, part of the Lakehead system, carries light crude oil to Chicago-area refineries.

Read more: http://www.vancouver...l#ixzz21waBxWMs

 

 

Edited by Bingo, 27 February 2016 - 09:14 AM.

[sebberry]

No way! That's it, Christy needs to say "No more pipes in BC", not "We want money for the pipes"

[VicHockeyFan]

^ Yes, some peace group should push for a worldwide moratorium. No more pipelines anywhere in the world ever.