Northern Gateway Pipeline Lawsuit

[WestCoastRunner]

The decision from the federal government to approve (or not) the Northern Gateway Pipeline is expected in July of this year. Ecojustice lawyers representing ForestEthics Advocacy, the Living Oceans Society and the Raincoast Conservation Foundation allege the Joint Review Panel's 419-page report contains legal errors and that its approval is based on insufficient evidence.

Here is the link to the full story: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/northern-gateway-pipeline-report-draws-lawsuit-1.2501051

Among their concerns (and many other folks who call B.C. our home) are:

• Missing information about the risk of geohazards along the pipeline route and what happens to diluted bitumen when it is spilled in the marine environment.

• Panel did not consider federal recovery strategy for Pacific humpback whales, whose critical habitat overlaps with the proposed tanker route, or identify mitigation measures for caribou populations.

• refused to consider the environmental impacts of upstream oilsands development and permits Enbridge to assess landslide risks during instead of before construction.

When (not if) an oil spill occurs it will be disastrous for British Columbia and Canada. Think of the tourist dollars that would be lost, fishing industry etc.

What are your thoughts?

[TimG]

What are your thoughts?

Risk cannot be eliminated. It can only be managed. The non zero risk of a catastrophe is not a reason to reject the pipeline.

[The_Squid]

The pipeline is certainly not worth the risk to BC. Alberta and Ottawa can go pound sand.

[TimG]

The pipeline is certainly not worth the risk to BC. Alberta and Ottawa can go pound sand.

A typical response from a self centered SOB. BC has a stake and a right insist on a comprehensive risk management strategy but that does not give it any right to veto the development simply because some risk exists. Inter-provincial transport is a federal responsibility for a reason. Edited February 17, 2014 by TimG

[Vancouver King]

Comprehensive risk management? What a joke. Alberta and Harper will pump this sludge to the West Coast in full knowledge that British Columbians will suffer the colossal financial and environmental losses when the huge spill inevitably takes place. The pipeline owners have demonstrated they can't run a lemonade stand.

Nothing short of a $25 billion up-front contingency fund will mitigate the risk.

[TimG]

the huge spill inevitably takes place.

It is not inevitable. That is just crap you make to rationalize your position. It is within the power of the BC government to insists on a regulatory program that will ensure the chances of a major spill are extremely small. If the BC government can't do this then they are not really competent to run anything.

The pipeline owners have demonstrated they can't run a lemonade stand.

Sorry, propaganda spread by luddites does not constitute evidence. Small pipeline spills are common and they are easily cleaned up. The real risk that needs to be managed is a major spill from a tanker.

Nothing short of a $25 billion up-front contingency fund will mitigate the risk.

Since we are pulling numbers out of hat why stop at 25 billion? Why not a trillion? Or a quadrillion? The cost of insurance has to be connected to the risk of a problem. Edited February 17, 2014 by TimG

[waldo]

A typical response from a self centered SOB.

Sorry, propaganda spread by luddites does not constitute evidence.

well... at least you haven't sunk to Harper Conservative, "enemies of the state", labeling!

[waldo]

It is not inevitable.

... ensure the chances of a major spill are extremely small.

even accepting your most self-serving described chance of a pipeline spill, your 'extremely small' chance doesn't quite match up to your other 'not inevitable' certainty/avoidance declaration. And, of course, no demonstrated technologies exist to deal with tarsands sludge sitting at the bottom of the ocean. As for a pipeline burst into streams/rivers, you clearly don't skim tarsands sludge off the surface of pooled areas... and, of course, it doesn't exactly dilute with water flow like conventional oil.

.

It is within the power of the BC government to insists on a regulatory program that will ensure the chances of a major spill are extremely small. If the BC government can't do this then they are not really competent to run anything.

perhaps you could advise how the provincial BC government "insists" on areas of federal regulation... or how the BC government holds industry accountable for regulations it actually imposes and industry ignores? Fines? Given all the pushback from industry over risk attachment to liability costs... as in holding real monies in trust given the... inevitable, just how does the BC government ensure industry will be held accountable for all costs associated with tanker spills, inclusive of lost livelihood, environment/ecosystem damage, tourism impacts, etc.?

.

Small pipeline spills are common and they are easily cleaned up.

on your measure, where does the Enbridge tarsands sludge pipeline spill into the Michigan Kalamazoo River fit? You know, the spill still not cleaned up after 3 years... the spill that Enbridge claims it's spent more than a $1 Billion dollars on cleanup... the spill that now has Enbridge planning dredge operations as a part of the cleanup? Is that one of your "easy cleanup" operations?

on edit: corrected the amount Enbridge claims to have spent on clean-up costs... per an application before the 'Minnesota Public Utilities Commission', in regards a request to expand another of its pipelines, Enbridge disclosed the cleanup costs (as of the August, 2013 filing of the request), at $1,039,000,000 USD

Edited February 17, 2014 by waldo

[WestCoastRunner]

According to The Mariners Group, there were 3.2 major oil spills per year over the last 37 years worldwide. However, over the last ten years, that number has climbed to 8.6 major oil spills per year, and in the last five years, soared to 14.8 major oil spills each year.

If those stats aren't frightening enough, the west coast is in an earthquake zone. Even a small quake could cause a tanker going aground or a massive leak.

The channels and inlets in and around the Vancouver harbour are extremely difficult for large tankers to maneouver.through with shallow waters and narrow channels. There is even talk of dredging some of these channels so even larger tankers can pass through.

It is estimated that the financial damage caused by a potential large-scale oil spill in the Burrard Inlet could cost approximately $40 billion.

That $40 billion includes clean-up costs, resident evacuations, tourism loss, losses to the BC fishing industry, health costs and port losses in annual wages and salaries.

But of course, the cost of an oil spill to our natural ecosystems is incalculable.

[waldo]

But of course, the cost of an oil spill to our natural ecosystems is incalculable.

absolutely... from an earlier post:

the award winning documentary SPOIL, showcasing the splendour of nature worth protecting, and the people privileged to live within it... highlights from the International League of Conservation Photographers, in the search for those iconic shots within the Great Bear Rainforest!

as for your direct question, start in around 31:00 of the film to gain an appreciation of the overall complexities in the tanker passage route, to see graphic representation and comparisons of, and to, the sunken BC ferry, 'Queen of the North' & the Exxon Valdez spill.

[WestCoastRunner]

That looks very interesting! I'll squeeze in some time to watch it. Thanks Waldo.

[TimG]

According to The Mariners Group, there were 3.2 major oil spills per year over the last 37 years worldwide. However, over the last ten years, that number has climbed to 8.6 major oil spills per year, and in the last five years, soared to 14.8 major oil spills each year.

And what are those numbers as a percentage of the volume shipped? If you don't have the numbers to put those facts in proper context then you are simply spouting anti-oil propaganda.

[waldo]

And what are those numbers as a percentage of the volume shipped? If you don't have the numbers to put those facts in proper context then you are simply spouting anti-oil propaganda.

let's have your numbers!... in proper context... without you simply spouting, as you say, "pro-oil propaganda". What's your acceptable number of oil spills per volume shipped?

[WestCoastRunner]

And what are those numbers as a percentage of the volume shipped? If you don't have the numbers to put those facts in proper context then you are simply spouting anti-oil propaganda.

This number is based on research done from other oil spills and the cost incurred based on the cost per barrel of oil that was spilled.

[TimG]

This number is based on research done from other oil spills and the cost incurred based on the cost per barrel of oil that was spilled.

You did not answer by question. The numbers you gave are completely meaningless unless you provide the volume of oil shipped because spills will increase as the volume increases.

Here is a report on double hulled tankers:

http://www.pwsrcac.org/wp-content/uploads/filebase/programs/oil_spill_prevention_planning/double_hull_tanker_review.pdf

On Page 15 the spills are broken down by ship/year for single hulled and double hulled tankers.

Double hulled tankers are 175x safer than single hulled and we are only talking about using double hulled off the coast of BC so that is the only stat that matters.

It is easy to lie with stats and that is what you are doing by quoting stats about numbers of single hull oil spills per year as if they had any relevance to the debate over the northern gateway.

Edited February 18, 2014 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

Oil spills have a huge relevance. Are you kiddiing me?

The briefing book estimates that at a rate of 500,000 barrels of crude oil a day, a pipeline spill lasting an hour could lead to 21,000 barrels spilling into B.C.’s wilderness.

And here is an article for you on why BC is so concerned

" Ottawa’s decision to deal with coastal oil spills from a base in Quebec would make it much harder to contain spills, and Transport Canada and the Coast Guard lack the needed “environmental expertise” to manage them, officials said in the documents obtained by The Canadian Press under freedom of information laws."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-worries-oil-spill-would-overwhelm-resources/article13944672/

[TimG]

Oil spills have a huge relevance. Are you kiddiing me?

Ok - if you want to have a discussion you need to read the arguments made and address them. Ignoring them suggests you either don't under the argument or you are not interested in hearing arguments that undermine what you have already decided to believe.

Please go back and read what I said and figure out why it already addresses the points you raised.

Edited February 18, 2014 by TimG

[waldo]

No, Double Hull Tankers Do Not Ensure 'Total Safety' --- Contrary to industry reassurances, Vancouver faces increasing risks of oil spill.

In May of this year (2010), the double-hulled tanker Bunga Kelana 3 spilled 2.9 million litres of crude into the waters off Singapore after being struck by a freighter.

Last January, the double-hulled tanker Eagle Otome spilled 1.7 million litres of crude oil at Port Arthur, Texas after a collision with a barge.

In 1992, the double-hulled carrier Aegean Sea broke apart after running aground and spilled 76 million litres of crude into the ocean off of northern Spain.
.
.
A 2005 report by the European Maritime Safety Agency warned: "The introduction of the double-hulled tanker would not be the panacea for prevention of future pollution from tankers at sea."

The authors conclude that in most cases double-hulled vessels are safer, however they also raised a number of concerns, including:

1. Accelerated structural corrosion in water ballast and in cargo tanks
2. The lack of mandatory provisions relating to coatings for cargo and ballast tanks
3. Fatigue
4. A demanding and difficult maintenance regime which, if not properly observed, could lead to structural deterioration
5. Lack of mandatory and harmonized procedures for monitoring workmanship and standards of construction during the vessel construction and repair

The panel also cautioned that many of the vessels are nearing 20 years old, and corrosion and metal fatigue between the hulls could be concealed from view unless the vessel owners invest in rigorous monitoring.

Most commercial vessels are registered with nations with comparatively lax shipping regulations, and fully 40 per cent of the world's gross shipping tonnage are conveniently flagged to just three nations: Liberia, Panama and the Marshall Islands.

[PIK]

How many double hulled tankers did not spill after a accident??

[waldo]

How many double hulled tankers did not spill after a accident??

what's your personal risk factor... and attachment here PIK? Just what percentage ratio of volume shipped-to-spill incident are you personally accepting to while equally imposing that on those living in BC? What are your numbers PIK?

[WestCoastRunner]

How many double hulled tankers did not spill after a accident??

No one can absolutely guarantee that tankers regardless of their engineering and construction will not leak oil into our beautiful sea which is habitat for whales, dolphins, sea lions, etc. And Waldo is absolutely right in asking your personal risk factor? Do you live on the west coast? Have you thought about the implications of a massive oil spill. The impact of an oil spill far outweigh any economic benefit that may arise by building this pipeline and transporting through the shipping lanes.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nothing special about British Columbia compared to other coastal areas with crude carrier traffic and/or pipeline terminals. Review the plan, mitigate risk, and build it.

[On Guard for Thee]

Nothing special about British Columbia compared to other coastal areas with crude carrier traffic and/or pipeline terminals. Review the plan, mitigate risk, and build it.

Here are a couple of things I find special about BC. #1, it's a stonesthrow from Prince William Sound. You remember that little gig I assume. And #2, I live there. I don't think I want some drunk American ship driver depositing 11 million barrells of crude on my shores.

[bush_cheney2004]

Here are a couple of things I find special about BC. #1, it's a stonesthrow from Prince William Sound. You remember that little gig I assume. And #2, I live there. I don't think I want some drunk American ship driver depositing 11 million barrells of crude on my shores.

Meh.....get use to it...because there are pipeline terminals and crude carriers in your future. Oh, and by the way, the Americans also transit the area with nuclear powered submarines and hydrogen bombs.

[On Guard for Thee]

Meh.....get use to it...because there are pipeline terminals and crude carriers in your future. Oh, and by the way, the Americans also transit the area with nuclear powered submarines and hydrogen bombs.

Northern Gateway won't happen. Certainly not anytime soon. Get used to it.