To clarify, my views on the acceptable risk in this thread have to do with oil shipping on the coast. My opinion of Enbridge is much lower. As for the missing islands, I wouldn’t base any opinion (pro or con) on a cartoon. That is why I think the media is making a big deal out of nothing.
Okay. Your risk analysis states that we have had one major oil spill in the last 100 years therefore it is unlikely that we will have another one. The passage of time and the number of oil spills are not linked by causality. That is, just because we have been lucky during the last 100 years is no guarantee that we will not have another major oil spill tomorrow, next week, or in twenty years. I would argue that the risk of a spill will in fact go up if we have increased tanker traffic on the coast. Your analysis is flawed.
How did thousands of tankers use the West Coast for 100 years when there’s been a tanker ban on the BC coast for the last 40 years? They’re offshore, not in territorial waters. Certainly not in the Inside Passage or Douglas Channel.
Small boats delivering refined products to coastal communities are not tankers.
Tankers from Alaska to Cherry Point in Washington carry crude, not bitumen. And travel in international waters.
Which brings up yet another point. As soon as oil shipping starts, the Yanks are gonna tell us the Inside Passage is “International waters” and we only “claim” them as territory. They’ve fucking convinced half of Canada that we only “claim” our Arctic, it’s not really ours.
This is the chart of Valdez Alaska
maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&bav=on … CAcQ8gEwAA
No doctoring or different program to make things look a certain way. It is so obvious how much more risk going to Kitimat would be than even going to Valdez Alaska.
This is the chart to Kitimat
maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&s … e985d22350
It seems that the google map needs to be zoomed out because it did not go onto this page as I had it opened, but just zoom out some and you can see there is much more risk in going to Kitimat.
They took a “cartoon” that had the islands and PAID someone to delete the islands… that shows intent.
[quote=“herbie_popnecker”]How did thousands of tankers use the West Coast for 100 years when there’s been a tanker ban on the BC coast for the last 40 years? They’re offshore, not in territorial waters. Certainly not in the Inside Passage or Douglas Channel.
Small boats delivering refined products to coastal communities are not tankers.
Tankers from Alaska to Cherry Point in Washington carry crude, not bitumen. And travel in international waters.
Which brings up yet another point. As soon as oil shipping starts, the Yanks are gonna tell us the Inside Passage is “International waters” and we only “claim” them as territory. They’ve fucking convinced half of Canada that we only “claim” our Arctic, it’s not really ours.[/quote]
There is no tanker ban in BC. There is a an informal moratorium on tankers in the Hecate St., Queen Charlotte Sound and Dixon Entrance. I believe ships using Douglas Channel for the port at Kitimat are exempt. According to the BC Shipping News, there are 3000 tankers using BC waters every year. Vancouver and Kitimat have been shipping oil and/or petrochemicals for many years.
I have stated in previous threads that it would be better if the bitumen was upgraded to synthetic crude before shipping, but that is probably a matter of economics and I don’t know if that will happen.
I am comfortable with shipping oil from BC, and I think many people form their opinions from alarmist worst case scenarios. If we based all of our decisions like that we would accomplish nothing and would live in fear our entire lives.
Anyway, this is my view and I respect other opinions. Debate is healthy.
Those alarmist worst case scenarios have happened already and will continue to happen. Bitumen oil should never be shipped or sent through a pipeline unless it is refined. That refining should be done as close to the source as possible.
The Trans Mountain pipeline has been carrying oil for decades and as far as I know not a single animal or fish has died because of it. How many animals do trains kill every year? Or worse yet, how many people die on highways? We still use rail and roads.
Really not a single animal or fish has died because of it? Do you really believe that, or is just hyperbole? Serious question here.
No, I said as far as I know no animals have died, based on an internet search. My point is that some people are resigned to the fact that there will be a catastrophe and I just don’t believe that is the case. Some people have tunnel vision when it comes to pipelines and I was trying to point out that there are other things that affect wildlife that we just take for granted.
As for tanker traffic, I have even more faith. Valdez was a single hulled ship whose captain was drunk. The regulations here require double hull, pilots, and tugs. To suggest that there will be another wreck like Valdez is kind of an insult to these professionals. I realize that sometimes all the wrong moons align and an accident is possible. But with all the modern safeguards I just think the odds of that happening are so small they are negligible.
[quote=“crazy Horse”]My point is that some people are resigned to the fact that there will be a catastrophe and I just don’t believe that is the case.
[/quote]
I don’t share your optimism. I’m not willing to gamble with our coastal ecosystem. Even if tanker design has improved significantly you cannot rule out the human element or catastrophic events.
I don’t share your optimism. I’m not willing to gamble with our coastal ecosystem. Even if tanker design has improved significantly you cannot rule out the human element or catastrophic events.[/quote]
Fair enough.
78 spills on the Trans-Mountain Pipeline. Those are the ones that the company voluntarily reported, anyway. You don’t believe that any of those caused any damage? Really? That’s what you really believe?
Ok, so over the life of the Enbridge Pipeline, let’s say they have a similar number of spills. Are you confident that they’ll react fast enough to prevent a disaster? Enbridge’s history says otherwise.
[quote=“MiG”]
78 spills on the Trans-Mountain Pipeline. Those are the ones that the company voluntarily reported, anyway. You don’t believe that any of those caused any damage? Really? That’s what you really believe?
Ok, so over the life of the Enbridge Pipeline, let’s say they have a similar number of spills. Are you confident that they’ll react fast enough to prevent a disaster? Enbridge’s history says otherwise.[/quote]
You are really starting to split hairs now. Ok, if you spill a litre of oil in your yard you have done some damage. Recycle BC says they recycled 48 million litres of motor oil last year, and that is a 79% recovery. That leaves a lot of oil in landfills, ditches, drivesways etc. That also has done some damage to the environment of animals and fish. Or what about the antifreeze and salt and other contaminents that get plowed into the ditch with the snow every winter. More damage. I would suggest that these examples do more damage than the spills you elude to. At some point we have to weigh the significance of these things and decide what is acceptable.
Safe to say we disagree on the acceptable risk of pipleining and shipping oil in BC.
Well, I’m not here to split hairs. My questions were to figure out if you actually believed what you said, or were just saying it as part of an argument. ie: that the Trans Mountain Pipeline hasn’t had any spills, and they’ve never harmed any wildlife.
If the 2007 Burnaby spill happened in one of the many rivers around here, what do you think the outcome would be?
Do you think Enbridge would act the same way they always act when there’s a spill? Or do you think they’ve ‘learned their lesson’ now? It took 20 minutes to turn off the Trans Mountain Pipeline in Burnaby, and they spilled more than 200 thousand litres. That is in an urban area, and it still made its way to the coast and covered beaches.
How long do you think it would take Enbridge to turn off their pipeline in case of a spill? History tells us it would be 24 hours or so, right? You want 24 hours of spillage into the Skeena? That’s acceptable?
You tried to paint a picture of the Trans Mountain Pipeline as being some sort of perfectly safe pipeline that’s never had a spill nor caused any environmental damage. But that’s not accurate. And I want to know if you really thought that was true? Or if you were just trying to convince us (and yourself) that it was true?
Nice touch with the bird. Your neighbours cat probably kills 20 times that a year.
Look, I can’t find a news story that tells me of any significant damage from the Trans Mountain pipeline in 60 years of operation. Do I think it is all squeaky clean? Of course not. If there is a spill, clean it up and carry on. The incidents you cite are not serious enough to make me think they do any more harm than the CPR, CNR, CANFOR, Rio Tinto Alcan, or you and me for that matter.
Then you ask me how long I think it will take Enbridge to turn off their pipeline in a spill. How the hell would I know?
You have a hard time accepting when someone doesn’t agree with you. It doesn’t really matter to me, I’m sure you believe what you do for good reason. But I have yet to hear a viable alternative from you. Criticism is ok, but at least provide a solution.
That Burnaby spill can’t really be blamed on the pipeline, some idiot road contractor with a backhoe tore it up.
It was one hell of a mess even though they reacted quick. Now if that happened way out in the bush and got into a river…
Right, the point is that was a bird that was a victim of the Trans Mountain Pipeline spill in 2007. The pipeline you insisted had never killed any wildlife.
Ok, great. How about the 2007 Burnaby spill? That was significant damage, and it would have been much worse if it had happened in a remote location. Or is the fact that you can’t find information (or remember the media coverage of it) mean it didn’t happen?
Sorry, I thought you’d been reading up on all this stuff. Their history says it takes them about 24 hours or so to turn off a pipeline. The Trans Mountain people took about 20 minutes in the Burnaby spill.
Sorry if it comes across that way. In reality, I want to understand the thought process that comes to your conclusion.
For example, you say that it’s not a big risk. You say to take a look at Trans Mountain Pipeline, they never had any spills or environmental damage. Ok, fair enough. They’ve had 78 spills, including the 2007 one in Burnaby that spilled 200,000 litres. It was a good response, and they cleaned it up quickly too. But it still got to the coast and caused significant damage.
Now the reason I keep asking if you really believe what you do, is I wonder if you would have arrived at the same conclusion if you had known about the 2007 Trans Mountain spill, for example. Or that history has shown it takes Enbridge about 24 hours to turn off a pipeline. Both of these facts you admit you didn’t know. Do they change your mind?
Well, I tend not to make up my mind without considering as much information as I can. I’m undecided about the Enbridge pipeline. But that doesn’t mean I accept either side without checking into it.
But if I were in favour of building the pipeline based on the the ideal of the Trans Mountain pipeline not having any spills, and not knowing Enbridge’s history of reaction times, I think I would change my mind when I found out the truth of these things.
Which, again, is why I keep asking you how you’ve come to your conclusion that it would be a safe pipeline. You admit not really knowing about Enbridge’s history of reactions to spills, and you seem to have been wrong about Trans Mountain pipeline.
And some talk that the pipeline wasn’t mapped properly. But it’s not about placing blame. It’s about realizing there will be accidents, and whether we’re willing to accept the risk of those accidents.
If the Burnaby spill had happened along the route of the proposed Enbridge pipeline, it would have been a disaster.
OK, just real quick because we may have beaten this to death;
-I didn’t insist anywhere that no wildlife had been killed. I said I couldn’t find any such evidence.
-I stand by my statement of no significant damage from the Trans Mountain pipeline. Yes, there was a contractor that accidentally cut through it in Burnaby, but there doesn’t seem to be any lasting effects from the spill. And I remember it well, no denying that.
-Still don’t know how long it would take to turn off the pipeline in the event of a spill. I agree with your past history time frame, I would think it would be much quicker in the future.
-I think it took Enbridge 17 hours of “keystone kops” activity by the way, not 24. No change in my beliefs, you haven’t told me anything I didn’t already know. You keep trying to put words in my mouth. For example, again you say “history has shown Enbridge takes 24 hours to turn off a pipeline” but the question was “how long will it take”, not how long did it take the last time. And for that you say it is a “fact you admit you didn’t know.” BS, that I know. I still don’t know the future one and you don’t either.
-
A bit of common ground finally. I said in an earlier thread that I am undecided on the Northern Gateway pipeline, that I wasn’t convinced the benefit outweighed the risk. And earlier in this topic I said I wasn’t overly comfortable with Enbridge. Kalamazoo is hard to dismiss.
-
And finally, once again, I know all about the history of Enbridge spills and am well aware of the Burnaby rupture. My basis for relative safety was in my comparison to other activities and I stand by those.
We are going to hear an awful lot about how Enbridge has now seen the light and is a “New” Company that has learned from it’s past mistakes. By doctoring maps, “Cartoons” or not and by leaving off proximity to local parks as Herbie pointed out, simply shows this company will do whatever it takes to deceive the public and manipulate the process.
They have shown this to the Michigan residents with their handling of the Kalamazoo spill cleanup and unfortunately they will demonstrate the same disregard to their spills that will happen in Northern BC.
We are talking a whole new ballgame when we talk about cleaning up bitumen as opposed to the oil that the Valdez spilled.