West-East Pipeline

[jacee]

You have a larger chance of getting hit by a truck while avoiding finch station than by any accident there. The insanity of environmentalists is they grossly exaggerate small risks while ignoring large risks when those large risks benefit them. That is why environmentalism is, at its core, a philosophy of selfishness (i.e. the environmentalist credo: if it does not benefit me personally i want to stop it to prevent others from benefiting).

You have absolutely no concerns about the ENBRIDGE spill-and denial record on other lines ... ?

"Enbridges submission claims only 1 spill every 4 years. Enbridge has had an average of 60 spills per year from 1998 to 2010 ...

No concerns about their proposed west-east reversal of a 38 year old pipeline, half the recommended thickness for oilsands 'dilbit', running through heavily populated areas and major watersheds without

-proper testing of the line?

-insurance to cover spill cleanup?

You work for Enbridge, right?

Edited October 26, 2013 by jacee

[TimG]

You have absolutely no concerns about the ENBRIDGE spill-and denial record on other lines

Cars crash. People die. We don't ban driving. We don't even do all we can to reduce traffic fatalities (e.g. put 50 kph speed limits on freeways). We live with risk because the benefits of driving outweigh the risks. The same is true for oil pipelines. There will be spills and they will need to be cleaned up. So what? The benefits of pipelines far outweighs the risks.

Of course, you will likely argue that you don't personally benefit from pipelines which proves my point about environmentalism being a fundamentally selfish theology. You only care about what you personally benefit from and want to ban everything that does not benefit you.

Edited October 26, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

Cars crash. People die. We don't ban driving. We don't even do all we can to reduce traffic fatalities (e.g. put 50 kph speed limits on freeways). We live with risk because the benefits of driving outweigh the risks. The same is true for oil pipelines. There will be spills and they will need to be cleaned up. So what? The benefits of pipelines far outweighs the risks.

You have no interest in minimizing risks?

Then you have no credibility.

Of course, you will likely argue that you don't personally benefit from pipelines which proves my point about environmentalism being a fundamentally selfish theology. You only care about what you personally benefit from and want to ban everything that does not benefit you.

Trash talk.

You didn't answer ... You work for Enbridge/oil industry Tim? What's your stake in this?

[TimG]

You have no interest in minimizing risks?

Sure. Minimize risks but not at any cost and the efforts to minimize risk should be based on a proper cost/benefit analysis. Where is your evidence that a 'full hydro-static test' would actually reduce risk? I doubt you even know what a hydro-static test is and what lower cost alternatives exist.

You didn't answer ... You work for Enbridge/oil industry Tim? What's your stake in this?

My stake is simple: our society is being slowly strangled to death by nimbys who oppose any new development. The death will be slow because we have a lot of infrastructure that was built before the cult of 'build nothing anywhere' emerged - but the death will come unless people start to push back against these self absorbed activists. Edited October 26, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

Sure. Minimize risks but not at any cost and the efforts to minimize risk should be based on a proper cost/benefit analysis. Where is your evidence that a 'full hydro-static test' would actually reduce risk? I doubt you even know what a hydro-static test is and what lower cost alternatives exist.

I expect that public discussion to occur.

My stake is simple: our society is being slowly strangled to death by nimbys who oppose any new development. The death will be slow because we have a lot of infrastructure that was built before the cult of 'build nothing anywhere' emerged - but the death will come unless people start to push back against these self absorbed activists.

Oh. The scary death scenario.

That's your best argument?

There's no room for other perspectives?

No discussion, consideration, resolution?

Just 'Do what we say or risk the scary death'?

You're not making your case very well.

Edited October 26, 2013 by jacee

[waldo]

Oh. The scary death scenario. That's your best argument?

why... how alarmist of member TimG!

[TimG]

I expect that public discussion to occur.

A "public discussion" usually means people who know nothing spreading fear and lies about projects in order to stop them. Case in point: Enbridge has technical reasons for saying the 'full hydro-static test' is not necessary. What are these reasons? Why are these reasons not part of the story? (answer: complex technical points are difficult to communicate to the public and undermine the big bad corporation narrative).

That's your best argument?

So pathetic. You assume that anyone who opposes your views must have a financial interest in a corporation. When I explained how my motivations are largely altruistic you try to ignore the context of my comment.

No discussion, consideration, resolution?

You are the one with no interest in discussion. You have made it clear that you want all large infrastructure projects shut down because you are not willing to accept that it is impossible to eliminate risk.

Demonstrate that you are willing to accept some risk that comes with large infrastructure projects. Once you demonstrate you are willing to accept some risk then we can talk about cost effective ways to minimize risk.

Edited October 27, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

A "public discussion" usually means people who know nothing spreading fear and lies about projects in order to stop them. Case in point: Enbridge has technical reasons for saying the 'full hydro-static test' is not necessary. What are these reasons? Why are these reasons not part of the story? (answer: complex technical points are difficult to communicate to the public and undermine the big bad corporation narrative).

I expect it'll be reported when it's presented to the NEB, and the Ontario Ministry of Energy's response.

So pathetic. You assume that anyone who opposes your views must have a financial interest in the corporation. When I explained how my motivations are largely altruistic you try to ignore the context of my comment?

Altruistic ... ?

You mean the 'scary death' without the pipeline reversal scenario?

You are the one with no interest in discussion. You have made it clear that you want all large infrastructure projects shut down because you are not willing to accept that it is impossible to eliminate risk.

Demonstrate that you are willing to accept some risk that comes with large infrastructure projects. Once you demonstrate you are willing to accept some risk then we can talk about cost effective ways to minimize risk.

I'm simply interested in how the process unfolds, and that the discussion occurs.

[dre]

My stake is simple: our society is being slowly strangled to death by nimbys who oppose any new development.

This is silly even by your standards. Environmentalists have very little clout today at all, and their concerns are routinely and summarily dismissed.

"Slowly stranged to death" ROFLMAO...

[TimG]

This is silly even by your standards. Environmentalists have very little clout today at all, and their concerns are routinely and summarily dismissed.

The facts don't support your assertion. Ontario is losing out on the cheap electricity boom because of politicians pandering to environmentalists. Environmentalists are blocking fracking in Quebec and NB. The Keystone XL and Gateway pipelines have been delayed indefinitely by these environmentalists. I could go on.

The message business is getting is "don't try to build anything new because it will be blocked". So business will invest in existing infrastructure like rail instead of building safer and more efficient pipelines.

[TimG]

I expect it'll be reported when it's presented to the NEB, and the Ontario Ministry of Energy's response.

So if the Ontario Energy Minister says no such tests are required would you agree or would your accuse the Ontario Energy Minister of being a corporate stooge? Somehow I think the latter is more likely.

[jacee]

So if the Ontario Energy Minister says no such tests are required would you agree or would your accuse the Ontario Energy Minister of being a corporate stooge? Somehow I think the latter is more likely.

I'll consider all info.

Already presented in previous post:

Last week, during public hearings, Ontario's Ministry of Energy urged the National Energy Board to insist upon the hydrostatic test and independent reviews of company-produced assessments, before even considering Enbridge's plans to increase flow ...

[Topaz]

Yes, there are many risks in life, but the spill record for oil pipelines are known and just like e-mission test on autos and safety checks on auto, they NEED safety checks on pipelines, especially when it will endanger humans. So if oil co. is so sure testing doesn't be done and the pipes are safe then the Ontario government and oil co. should put a the billion for a period of time and if it doesn't spill they can have their money back. What is Mayor Ford saying about this?

[TimG]

should put a the billion for a period of time and if it doesn't spill they can have their money back.

A billion dollars is a lot of money to leave tied up 'just in case'. What the company needs is insurance which covers the cost of spill clean up. The insurance company would then, in turn, reduce the premiums based on measures which reduce risk. This is a much more effective way to provide incentives to companies to not scrimp on safety measures.

[jacee]

A billion dollars is a lot of money to leave tied up 'just in case'. What the company needs is insurance which covers the cost of spill clean up. The insurance company would then, in turn, reduce the premiums based on measures which reduce risk. This is a much more effective way to provide incentives to companies to not scrimp on safety measures.

And does Enbridge have appropriate and sufficient insurance for the west-east reversal and 'dilbit' in this 38 year old half-strength pipeline through heavy populated areas and major watersheds?

Answer, previously posted,

A third-party review of risk and engineering assessments, a $1 billion U.S. insurance policy, and a full hydrostatic test of an aging pipeline that cuts across Toronto aren't necessary, Enbridge argued

Enbridge disagrees with you, TimG.

Edited October 27, 2013 by jacee

[jacee]

From personal communication:

Haudenosaunee Territory/North Dumfries

Individuals from Six Nations and their allies have interrupted work on a section of Enbridges Line 9 pipeline. The work stoppage began around 10am this morning. Individuals involved asked workers to leave, asserting that the land is Haudenosaunee territory guaranteed under the Haldimand deed, and that Enbridges workers were present without consent or consultation.

Protesters shut down Enbridge dig in North Dumfries

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/toronto/story/1.2709982

Meaningful consultation isnt just providing information and going ahead without discussion its giving the opportunity to say no and having a willingness to accommodate. says Missy Elliot.

Enbridge left a voice message on a machine with one person. Thats not meaningful its not even consultation. Emilie Corbeau, there in support of Six Nations points out.

No kidding!