Grain or oil

[WestCoastRunner]

A report funded by a grant from the US Environmental Protection Agency studied the impact of the completion of three new major economic projects that could increase the risk of tanker accidents off the west coast. It states an increase of 18 percent and the risk of oil out flow by 68 percent. The large gap here refers to the large volume of oil that would be transported that comes from the Trans mountain pipeline.

The 3 projects the report refers to are: The Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Pipeline, the Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point in Washington and the expansion of the Deltaport container terminal, located in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

As I have stated, IMHO, with those percentage risks, it doesn't make sense to BC and Canada to increase oil tanker traffic.

Here is the article. Links to the report can be found in the article.

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/new-study-finds-three-new-major-projects-would-significantly-increase-risk-oil-spills-coast

[Wilber]

68% of what? 68% of nothing is still nothing.

[waldo]

I'm trying to figure out what your point is with the Americans.

Do you want them to ship it for us out of their terminals?

my point was to reinforce that the route chosen by the American company, owned by a couple of swell former Enron executives, could just have easily (more easily from a practical standpoint) gone on down through to those Washington State ports... and avoided Vancouver altogether. If you're objecting to, as you say, "shipping out of their terminals", I don't recall you raising this concern with respect to KXL and Gulf Coast ports.

So we do some berthing improvements and dredging. Vancouver is a port and that's what ports do all the time. It is not like Burrard inlet is the mouth of a major fish bearing river.

Clearly, Georgia Strait is too dangerous for any large shipping and we should shut Vancouver down altogether.

you stated there is risk... you simply qualified it as "less". Oh sure, no biggee! A seven-fold number of tankers... and an increase in tanker size/type to the Suez-Max class. Why stop there! Bring in the SuperTankers! It's only, as you say, "less" risky. No biggee!

.

[WestCoastRunner]

Try to keep up.

I really hate this phrase. It is condescending and insulting. Do you honestly think that people following a thread are not intelligent enough to keep up. Choose your words carefully.

[waldo]

68% of what? 68% of nothing is still nothing.

presuming you actually read WCR's linked article, in the context of the article's reference to 68%, just what does your statement, as quoted, mean?

[Spiderfish]

I really hate this phrase. It is condescending and insulting. Do you honestly think that people following a thread are not intelligent enough to keep up. Choose your words carefully.

I'm not crazy about being advised to re-read a post of mine and having it's contents read back and explained to me as if I was somehow daftly unaware of what I posted. I find it equally condescending. If it was simply an oversight on your part, I apologize. If not, you may want to take your own advise.

Edited March 9, 2014 by Spiderfish

[Wilber]

my point was to reinforce that the route chosen by the American company, owned by a couple of swell former Enron executives, could just have easily (more easily from a practical standpoint) gone on down through to those Washington State ports... and avoided Vancouver altogether. If you're objecting to, as you say, "shipping out of their terminals", I don't recall you raising this concern with respect to KXL and Gulf Coast ports.

So because the pipeline is being built by a US company, that obligates the US to transport Canadian oil through their territory and accept the environmental risks? I think that is a ridiculous assertion and for the record, I have never expressed an opinion on Keystone because that is for Americans to decide.

you stated there is risk... you simply qualified it as "less". Oh sure, no biggee! A seven-fold number of tankers... and an increase in tanker size/type to the Suez-Max class. Why stop there! Bring in the SuperTankers! It's only, as you say, "less" risky. No biggee!

.

BC is the west coast of Canada and it has an obligation to the rest of the country when it comes to getting its products to market. If it is not willing to do that, it should separate and go into competition with the US to ship Canadian products. My concern is that BC is adequately compensated for the risks it takes, all possible measures are taken to reduce those risks and are rigidly enforced, and that BC is not left holding the bag if things go sideways environmentaly. My problem with NG is that I don't think that is possible. The weather is too bad much of the year and the terrain too remote. I don't think that is true of increasing the capacity of the existing KM line.

presuming you actually read WCR's linked article, in the context of the article's reference to 68%, just what does your statement, as quoted, mean?

Yes I did read it and I read the whole thing but I'm wondering if WCR (or you) did. My point was, that you have to have a number to give a percentage of. If you just pull out a number like 68% it sounds ominous and makes great propaganda if no one thinks about it too hard. What it really says is if you have had one major spill in the past 20 years (which we haven't, we have never had a major oil spill in these waters), you can expect to have 1.68 spills in the next twenty. Sounds a little different when you put it that way.

It also says that all accidents will not result in spills because the hull must be pierced, bearing in mind we are speaking of double hulled tankers, not single hull like most other ships including the Exxon Valdez. It also goes on about what measures it found that can reduce risks and recommendations on how to proceed.

Researchers did the same thing for variety of mitigating factors. Some proved more effective than within the test model, including reducing vessel speed. The report concluded that risk mitigation factors significantly reduced the risk of accidents and spills, but recommended a comprehensive, location-specific strategy to help manage risk in the long term.

Edited March 9, 2014 by Wilber

[Argus]

The grain farmers are having problems moving their grains out by train because CP &CN say the very cold temps. are having an affect on the air brakes and they have to do shorter trains and lighter loads. Really, does that go for all those tankers cars, which probably weigh more than the grain??? http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Business/ID/2439896900/

Hunter Harrison (CP CEO) gave an interview on BNN the other day, commenting on the federal government's insistence on their shipping a million tons a week, he said the issue has nothing to do with oil. Oil shipments make up 5% of their load, and, he said, are a lower margin good in terms of profits. The issues are the unusually severe weather we've had, and that Canada had a bumper crop which the railways got little notice of.

[waldo]

The issues are the unusually severe weather we've had, and that Canada had a bumper crop which the railways got little notice of.

got little notice of a bumper crop? I would expect 'Mr. Hunter Harrison (CP CEO)' should recognize... and acknowledge, he has high-priced analysts with a job that should provide forecasts to the company on freight it will be asked/required to handle. What a concept!

[Argus]

got little notice of a bumper crop? I would expect 'Mr. Hunter Harrison (CP CEO)' should recognize... and acknowledge, he has high-priced analysts with a job that should provide forecasts to the company on freight it will be asked/required to handle. What a concept!

And how much notice do you think they would get that the size of the crop would be exceptional? Enough time to do what, exactly? Build more tracks?

[waldo]

And how much notice do you think they would get that the size of the crop would be exceptional? Enough time to do what, exactly? Build more tracks?

proactive companies don't "wait for notice"... are you suggesting there's nothing in the pipeline, nowhere in the pipeline, for a (proactive) company to gain a sense on yields, real and/or forecasted? If you're suggesting that knowledge is moot, then perhaps you should advise 'Mr. Hunter Harrison (CP CEO)', that he's offering up a moot point excuse!

[Argus]

proactive companies don't "wait for notice"... are you suggesting there's nothing in the pipeline, nowhere in the pipeline, for a (proactive) company to gain a sense on yields, real and/or forecasted? If you're suggesting that knowledge is moot, then perhaps you should advise 'Mr. Hunter Harrison (CP CEO)', that he's offering up a moot point excuse!

Yes, I'm suggesting it's impossible to know anything about what the crop is going to be like far enough in advance for a railroad to do much of anything to prepare for it. But I admit my lack of expertise. No doubt you will be able to guide me on this subject. I eagerly wait your list of what CP should have done given the, at most, month or two notice they could have had.

[waldo]

as a matter of business requirement, terminals order train cars long before the grain is off the field... those train car orders are based on yield projections. A proactive company looks to position its fleet of locomotives/cars to best avoid recognized bottlenecks and/or prioritize them From there the myriad of direct workforce management options come into play. Standard operating procedure. Again, if you're calling it all a moot point, then your described, 'Mr. Hunter Harrison (CP CEO)', shouldn't be offering up moot point excuses.

[hitops]

The solution is so brain-dead obvious that it's almost laughable. We need more pipeline for oil. That frees up capacity for grain and everything else.

The fact that environmentalists oppose pipeline capacity, and thereby increase the risks to the environment, is all the proof we need of the illegitimacy of this stance. They will continue to do everything possible to stop pipeline expansion, and therefore continue to increase the number, severity and environmental consequence of spills.

Edited March 13, 2014 by hitops

[waldo]

The solution is so brain-dead obvious that it's almost laughable. We need more pipeline for oil. That frees up capacity for grain and everything else.

the waldo is just the messenger; you're welcome!

The notion that CN’s crude-by-rail business is displacing grain on the company’s rail network has no merit; CN’s crude oil car loadings in 2013 accounted for less than two percent of the company’s total freight volumes.

.

[Smallc]

Which is about 4 times what it used to account for.

[waldo]

Which is about 4 times what it used to account for.

in regards the quoted statement from the CN spokesperson, your implication is what?

[Smallc]

That it's still displacing something, even at that small amount.

[waldo]

That it's still displacing something, even at that small amount.

per that quoted statement of Mark Hallman, Canadian National Railway spokesperson, your comment has no merit.

The notion that CN’s crude-by-rail business is displacing grain on the company’s rail network has no merit; CN’s crude oil car loadings in 2013 accounted for less than two percent of the company’s total freight volumes.

[Smallc]

Again, it's displacing something, even if it's only a small amount.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Smallc

[waldo]

Again, it's displacing something, even if it's only a small amount.

again, per the quoted statement of the CN spokesperson, the minimal displacement you're presuming upon, has no merit in terms of displacing grain.

[Smallc]

Again, it's displacing a small amount of something p, and is contributing a very small amount to a problem that has many factors, no matter what CN says. They're hauling 4x as much oil as they were....that's displacing something.

[waldo]

no matter what CN says

ok, whatever you say!

[hitops]

the waldo is just the messenger; you're welcome!

Is this a serious point?

Your point quoting a figure of 2% as if all is well, is like saying we should carry liquid tnt on trains because the amount is so tiny it would amount to less than 0.00001% of cars.

This problem is known and accepted everywhere, including in the US. Maybe the NTY can get through to you:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/business/energy-environment/accidents-surge-as-oil-industry-takes-the-train.html?_r=0

Or maybe statistics Canada:

http://cf.datawrapper.de/BAk5N/1/

Let's take your 2% number (assuming as you do, that the best source for information on a controversy is the spokesman representing a company in the middle of that controversy). With only 2% by rail, volumes of oil spilled are 5x greater than spills from pipelines. Rail transport of oil is massively increasing. Ergo, pipeline blockage is the worst possible environmental strategy.

I'm not saying environmentalists care much about protecting the environment, I fully realize it's mostly just about emoting, feeling important and the sex appeal of the pipeline as a opposition symbol. Also a good place to meet girls. But those few who really do care about the environment and not just a sense of self-importance, would be stupid to oppose more pipeline capacity.

Edited March 14, 2014 by hitops

[overthere]

I don't see why the railroads can be expected to voluntarily invest millions and /or billions in new locomotives, rolling stock or track when they are running at or near capacity and making boatloads of money off their current capital investments. Why risk the capital? If the govt wants something else or anything specific shipped, are they going to pay for it now, and pay for it later if and when demand lessens?