Accountability Now

You really could save yourself some embarrassment if you actually followed up on your 2014 article. Here: TransCanada whistleblower's concerns resolved, says NEB Investigation finds some allegations could not be verified, others rectified by TransCanada

The first line gives context to the last line however if you prefer to read things out of context then be my guest.

Yup...break out the ad hominem when you have no other way to go. The simple fact is the respondents had the ability to say "Don't know" or refuse to answer. Even with those two options, the resounding option was import Western Oil or exploit their own oil resources. Of course, if you are that distraught, perhaps you can contact Leger who did the poll and ask them about the uncertainty. You're right...those things are missing because Leger is a professional company that wouldn't take part in deliberate, biased and clearly ignorant poll questions. Having said that, feel free to contact 1,000 people from Quebec and ask them what they think. I'm sure that most people in Quebec either don't really know or care much about it. However, even the largest opponent of this pipeline (Mr. Coderre) even seems to be coming around: I guess it can't be as horrendous as you make it out if ol' Coderre can be persuaded. Cha-ching! This is the largest pot in the history of pots calling the kettle black.

Read the first part....TransCanada has identified the majority and most significant of its hazards and risks.

Try reading the first two paragraphs of the article. That might help you sleep at night. Also might want to look at this one:

Jacee....looking at the incidents it's clear that the VAST majority occurred in the US where I have shown that even the NTSB has cited the weak standards for pipeline welding and repairs. You will see the claim in the report here http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20120710.aspxOne of the few Canadian examples shown was in Alberta where it says the Alberta Flood caused the rupture.

Didn't stop them from getting Line 9

It cost them because that is a liability that comes with the job. No risk...no reward. They usually make a couple billion in profit per year so losing 1 billion for a one time event is not going to bankrupt them

I already posted that. You're free to go back and read if you wish

Please continue to have these fake conversations with yourself because you're really no good at having real conversations with anyone else.

Sounds like you have a career waiting for you in pipeline operations.

Yes...when they believe a leak is happening.

They didn't ignore the alarm bells. Please stop spewing your ignorance. They continued to correct what they thought was causing the alarms based on previous experience.

If you think there might be a leak...then yes. However I read somewhere that they had this error message before and it was a plugged line. Again, troubleshooting remotely is not an easy task and usually goes down to experience. I trust this error message going forward will carry a much different tone. Cars have been recalled due to safety measures, yet you still drive. Planes have crashed but we still fly. Restaurants have served tainted food but you still eat out. Any of these not true? What's important is that pipelines deliver their product safely 99.99% of the time. And after this ONE incident we can expect a good lesson to be learned.

The error code said low pressure which could also indicate a blockage. They certainly did not ignore it as the article says, they worked all night trying to correct the error.

Maybe because it's their pipeline?

They didn't think it could be leaking. They thought it was plugged or instrumentation error.

As I have already clearly stated (even though some on here apparently can't comprehend basic English), Enbridge took the lion's share of the responsibility and they should have. What I am saying is that contrary to what you guys imply, Enbridge did not do this out of malicious intent or gross negligence. The alarms went off and the thought was the line was plugged, hence the reason why they tried pressurizing and flushing the line twice overnight which resulted in over 80% of the actual spill. As per the aptly article titled : A LESSON FOR BC: MICHIGAN 911 SYSTEM FAILED DURING THE KALAMAZOO SPILL, NTSB SAYS In hindsight the folks in Alberta should have just shut it down until they had visual confirmation. However at the time they felt it was not a rupture and this was also seen in the Chicago manager who felt it was instrumentation error. Now I know you armchair specialists like to think you know exactly what you would do in that situation however the reality is that many things went wrong that night: - Firefighters and a Michigan utility responded 3 hours after the rupture and found nothing - several other 911 calls went unchecked - No communication to Enbridge happened until 11:17 and they shut it down immediately. - the American standard for pipelines was seen as not adequate which was a factor for the rupture Just so Reefer doesn't have to go and smoke a reefer to calm down....this is Enbridge's pipeline and they are largely responsible for the events. However there were contributing factors that at least two of you three would never admit to. More so, no argument pushed forward can suggest that this one time event is what we should expect. Pipelines have a 99.99% efficiency rating and are known to be the safest mode of transporting crude.

Firefighters and a Michigan Utility employee were onsite investigating three hours after the alarm and they didn't find a leak. They concluded the smells were coming from a different area. The Utility didn't come back until more people started complaining.

Three area firefighters were sent to the scene about three hours after the time of the first alarm. They found nothing. The utilities group then found the leak at 11:15 am the next morning.

Nope. Enbridge has received the lion's share of the blame and rightfully so. What you fail to acknowledge is that there were other factors involved, namely the US standards for pipelines. As I asked you a number of times already, please show me a relevant case in Canada so that you can justify your claim about it taking 5 years to clean up. Waiting.....

I already said the rate was the same. Now perhaps you can admit that the final tax money coming out of Alberta on a net is way larger and in fact positive versus Quebec and most other provinces which is negative. Do you understand the concept of NET? In other words, the amount of money received by federal government from Alberta entities versus the amount of money spent in Alberta by the federal government?

Right....you mean the Michigan Utilities that didn't arrive for 18 hours to investigate?

And they should. This is a project and an industry that benefits all Canadians. The question was can you provide an example in Canada and you didn't or can't. The fact it happened on the other side of the border just adds another factor on top of the problem....a factor that Energy East won't have. And where were the Michigan Utilities in the 18 hours? If they would have responded quicker would this have been avoided or seriously downgraded. Aside from accusations of them being 'idiots', they certainly played a role in this. As Reefer states....this is the only one of significance and nothing like this has happened in Canada. It could happen in Canada however the learning curve from the ONE time it did happen will certainly play a part in the response time especially with local utilities involved.

That's funny. If you followed the Energy East story you'd realize that its not just Alberta. The 'world' you are talking about includes Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick. I haven't included Quebec in this world yet only because their government is not officially behind it however the majority of their people are including the mayor of Quebec city. I'm guessing that the rest of the world is a small place since the 'other' world that I live in has all these other people. Do you have any examples in Canada that took more than 5 years to clean up? I mean we are living in Canada and talking about a Canadian energy plan but your go to example is Kalamazoo which of course is in the US. By any chance, do you think US regulations or ability to respond may have affected this example?