On Guard for Thee Posted June 22, 2014 Report Posted June 22, 2014 Tankers ply the worlds oceans every day. With the use of pilots and two tugs this is really no different. Oceans tend to be wide, chanels not so much. Especially the one's we are talking about here. Quote
WestCoastRunner Posted June 22, 2014 Report Posted June 22, 2014 Oceans tend to be wide, chanels not so much. Especially the one's we are talking about here. and weather conditions play into it. We have atrocious instability that no one from northern gateway is mentioning. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
eyeball Posted June 22, 2014 Report Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) The thing is, everyone always has concerns about every project. If we listen to the NIMBYs, who still complain even after every precaution is taken, then nothing gets done. My thing is the 1000 watercourses, most salmonid bearing, that the pipeline will cross. It doesn't matter what precautions they take, there has never been and never will be a mega-project of this nature in British Columbia that will not fail to destroy, befoul and or otherwise degrade fish and fish habitat along the way, not to mention the communities who depend on these fish for their livelihoods. All I can say is I wish Ottawa treated British Columbians and salmon the way it treats Albertans and oil. More to the point though I hope British Columbians react the way Albertans did when Ottawa did treat Alberta's oil as if it wasn't Alberta's. As for the navigational challenges, I'm fairly certain that once they're in Douglas Channel they can move tankers up and down it easily enough, but it does need to be said the information being doled out has been and still is a little more than tinged with deceit. I'm willing to bet most people still think Douglas Channel is more like some big wide bay that faces the open sea and everything will be easy peasy. Why should I believe the precautions they take will be any less nonchalant than the use of information they've used to sell the public on this project? My other thing of course is that most of the oil we ship west will wind up fuelling the growth of yet another aggressive expansionist superpower - which the world needs like another hole in the head. Edited June 22, 2014 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
On Guard for Thee Posted June 22, 2014 Report Posted June 22, 2014 and weather conditions play into it. We have atrocious instability that no one from northern gateway is mentioning. Yes there's that too. I have a friend who's career is as a BC coast pilot. While on the one hand he says it would provide lot's of work, on the other he says it makes him nervous. "Too close quarters" Quote
Smallc Posted June 22, 2014 Report Posted June 22, 2014 The tankers will have pilots and tugs throughout the channel. It won't be dangerous in the way people are trying to make it out. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 22, 2014 Report Posted June 22, 2014 And then there's the fact this pipe will traverse a well known earthquake zone where all the pilot's and tugboat's in the world won't matter a hill of beans when the ground opens up. Quote
waldo Posted June 22, 2014 Report Posted June 22, 2014 Does anyone live in or near Kitimat - or knows the area well. If so, is this excerpt from a recent article generally accurate - lots of tankers currently using the channel, the width of the channel, etc.? It'd be nice to verify some reports with first-hand knowledge. Simple, again? Again you're quoting from that same David Akin/SunNews article... quoting the exact same thing... again? You keep asking... and asking... yet, somehow you ignored my ask of you the last time you quoted the same thing. Since you're repeating yourself, here... let me do the same. I'm asking... again, Simple! Simple, why keep dropping that David Akin/SunNews article reference... keying on what you bold highlighed within that article, why don't you reach a bit and compare the size of oil tankers proposed/intended with the size of existing tankers... key to the tanker classes and size/weight. Why don't you speak to the numbers of existing versus proposed tankers. What's the relevance of comparing East Coast tanker traffic, at large, with that route from Kitimat to the open ocean? C'mon Simple, reach beyond your SunNews cut & paste. I've already cast scrutiny on your claimed 'facts' with that split graphic showing how Enbridge downplayed the Douglas Channel as a wide open path to the open ocean! Quote
waldo Posted June 22, 2014 Report Posted June 22, 2014 Well, you may be right on that. Let's hope those requirements won't be met, however, many of those requirements are easy to fulfill. 209 quickly dwindles down. I haven't read through the 209 requirements but my understanding is that many, many of them are miniscule. no kidding! I really like the requirement that states... all other requirements must be met!... so, let's really call it 208! Quote
waldo Posted June 22, 2014 Report Posted June 22, 2014 It makes sense to go east. We have the infrastructure, the oil spill plans etc. We have nothing to handle the capacity shipping bitumen on the west coast. if it must be built/switched direction: existing refineries in the east... existing oil imported by Canada is for eastern provinces; use part of the capacity domestic requirements to eliminate importing oil - what a concept!!! Quote
waldo Posted June 22, 2014 Report Posted June 22, 2014 Volume yes, liability no. We all know who will pick up the tab if/when it goes sour. At least with east we can avoid the tricky west coast tanker threat. uhhh... is one of the "209" requirements that Enbridge must accept liability to cover full cleanup/restoration costs? Is one of the requirements that Enbridge must pay monies up-front to be held in trust... to cover that full liability cost? I can't seem to find those 2 requirements in that list..... do I have an old, out of date list? Quote
waldo Posted June 22, 2014 Report Posted June 22, 2014 Latest poll I see says 63% of BC'ers either say NO or aren't sure. anyone seen/heard from any of the BC Harper Conservative members? Mulcair said they were all in witness protection! Hey, about that 2015 election! Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 22, 2014 Report Posted June 22, 2014 uhhh... is one of the "209" requirements that Enbridge must accept liability to cover full cleanup/restoration costs? Is one of the requirements that Enbridge must pay monies up-front to be held in trust... to cover that full liability cost? I can't seem to find those 2 requirements in that list..... do I have an old, out of date list? I dunno. I seem to have the same list. Did they update it? Who would do that? The gov are all hiding under their desks and/ or gone for the summer. Maybe Enbridge has a few updates but I doubt they will cover the items you mention. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 22, 2014 Report Posted June 22, 2014 anyone seen/heard from any of the BC Harper Conservative members? Mulcair said they were all in witness protection! Hey, about that 2015 election! The silence is deafening. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted June 22, 2014 Report Posted June 22, 2014 Several of our posters have the attitude that the Oil industry is not serious about safety and the environment. God forbid there should be another Exxon Valdez - that was a big, huge lesson for the industry - 25 years ago. No company wants to be on the hook for literally billions in clean-up and damages......so they will take every precaution to prevent such a happening. They know the consequences and will be almost paranoid to protect their market value. That's what governments can do - huge clean-up escrow amounts and huge penalties, Quote Back to Basics
Argus Posted June 22, 2014 Report Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) No one wants this in their backyard. If precautions are taken there's a point where the risk becomes acceptable. People forget their are pipelines all across this country, all across this continent, literally MILLIONS of miles of pipelines delivering oil and gas where it needs to go. In the past, nobody really paid much attention to them. Unfortunately, that meant the pipeline companies didn't pay much attention to safety either. So what if some oil got spilled? Not a big deal. Do a cursory cleanup and fix the pipeline. Cost of doing business. Pipeline companies are still, from what I've read, contracting out important jobs like welding to the lowest bidders, and the quality often is in line with that. The strenuous efforts to halt expansion of pipelines out of Alberta is funded by mainly foreign interests and has little to do with pipeline, or even tanker safety. It's an effort to hinder the expansion of the Alberta Oil Sands. To that end, big American interests have funded anti-pipeline agitators from coast to coast. Don't think they're not fighting the eastern reversal and expansion of Enbridge's existing pipeline either. They certainly are. But companies like Enbridge leave themselves open to these tactics with their history of shoddy construction and errors. That's why, although I'm all for the new pipelines, I believe Enbridge should be 100% responsible for all cleanup costs, no matter how high, even if they bankrupt the company. I also believe their construction work should be very closely monitored all along the pipeline by government safety and environmental inspectors - paid for by Enbridge. Edited June 22, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 22, 2014 Report Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) There are no proper precautions. An oil spill is inevitable. BC is not willing to take that risk. You're willing to take that risk with the existing pipeline that fuels your cars and heats your homes. And BC seems eager to tap its own natural gas and build an LNG terminal for shipment overseas... Edited June 22, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 22, 2014 Report Posted June 22, 2014 and weather conditions play into it. We have atrocious instability that no one from northern gateway is mentioning. Simple solution. If the weather is bad, the tankers don't move. Isn't that the rule in Vancouver? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
kimmy Posted June 22, 2014 Report Posted June 22, 2014 Only if you are in denial about legal realities and the foundations of your country. Indigenous Peoples have a right to negotiate protection of the environment that sustains them, AND to negotiate economic and other benefits from projects that affect their traditional lands. . "protection of the environment that sustains them" I think everybody who has actually been to a reservation knows that this is a farce. Both the "protection" and the "sustains them" parts. Native activists in this country have promoted this image that natives are these devoted shepherds of the environment who follow their traditional values of living in harmony with nature. It's a convenient fiction they can whip out when they want to play this angle for political purposes. It doesn't resemble reality. "projects that affect their traditional lands" Every square centimeter of land in BC is claimed several times over by somebody or other as "their traditional land". The native population of BC must have been in the tens of millions back in the day for all of this to have been somebody's traditional land. A while back when Edmonton was upgrading the roads around the Walterdale bridge, some native leader discovered that the north foot of the bridge was on sacred lands, and that if they didn't receive compensation then the bridge would have to be moved. More recently some native people declared that the whole of southern Edmonton is built on native lands, and that they would require multiple billions of dollars in compensation for the use of their land. Or there's the native leader who demanded compensation for a wind power project that wasn't even on his reservation, because the winds belong to the natives and the white man is stealing his wind. At some point it just becomes impossible to take this stuff seriously anymore. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Keepitsimple Posted June 22, 2014 Report Posted June 22, 2014 Simple, again? Again you're quoting from that same David Akin/SunNews article... quoting the exact same thing... again? You keep asking... and asking... yet, somehow you ignored my ask of you the last time you quoted the same thing. Since you're repeating yourself, here... let me do the same. I'm asking... again, Simple! Thanks anyway Waldo but the question was answered by Smallc......it appears that the channel is more than a mile wide throughout the extent of the planned route. Just trying to verify the actual exposure, one fact at a time. Quote Back to Basics
jacee Posted June 22, 2014 Report Posted June 22, 2014 "protection of the environment that sustains them" I think everybody who has actually been to a reservation knows that this is a farce. Both the "protection" and the "sustains them" parts. Native activists in this country have promoted this image that natives are these devoted shepherds of the environment who follow their traditional values of living in harmony with nature. It's a convenient fiction they can whip out when they want to play this angle for political purposes. It doesn't resemble reality. I have visited reserve communities and I don't know what you're referring to. I have visited cities too, some with miles and miles of contaminated land, waters and air. What was your point again? "projects that affect their traditional lands" Every square centimeter of land in BC is claimed several times over by somebody or other as "their traditional land". The native population of BC must have been in the tens of millions back in the day for all of this to have been somebody's traditional land. I'm sure you've seen the map. https://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/abed/images/map3.jpg There are overlaps, shared hunting grounds. How much land would have been necessary for a community to survive on hunting-fishing-trapping-gathering? Looks pretty reasonable to me. Prior to European contact, BC's First Nations populations may have numbered some 300,000. http://www.hellobc.com/british-columbia/about-bc/culture-history.aspx If settlers were allotted 160 acres for agriculture, BC would (hypothetically, for comparison) have supported about 1.5m settler families. The amount of traditional land for traditional living doesn't seem out of line to me. A while back when Edmonton was upgrading the roads around the Walterdale bridge, some native leader discovered that the north foot of the bridge was on sacred lands, and that if they didn't receive compensation then the bridge would have to be moved. And ... ? More recently some native people declared that the whole of southern Edmonton is built on native lands, and that they would require multiple billions of dollars in compensation for the use of their land.And ... ?The Mississaugas (New Credit) got over $100m for a valid claim to part of Toronto. Or there's the native leader who demanded compensation for a wind power project that wasn't even on his reservation, On/off reserve is irrelevant. It's traditional territories that are relevant. because the winds belong to the natives and the white man is stealing his wind.And ... ?Land, waterways, mineral rights, air rights ... all are relevant ... in our society and in Aboriginal rights cases. And of course wind energy projects actually do occupy land and affect wildlife, so your characterization is not 'serious' but dismissive. At some point it just becomes impossible to take this stuff seriously anymore. -k You'd have to seriously follow such cases to their conclusion to have a serious understanding of the facts and issues, for me to take your comments seriously.Seriously ... is that the full extent of your comprehension of Aboriginal rights? Or ... is that just your way of denying and intentionally refusing to understand? Quote
Smallc Posted June 22, 2014 Report Posted June 22, 2014 I have visited reserve communities and I don't know what you're referring to. I have visited cities too, some with miles and miles of contaminated land, waters and air. http://www.forbes.com/2007/04/16/worlds-cleanest-cities-biz-logistics-cx_rm_0416cleanest.html Quote
waldo Posted June 22, 2014 Report Posted June 22, 2014 Thanks anyway Waldo but the question was answered by Smallc......it appears that the channel is more than a mile wide throughout the extent of the planned route. Just trying to verify the actual exposure, one fact at a time. then why did you drop that same article quote again... cause if that 'answer' is there it's before your latest repeat ask. I won't bother to (further) check for that actual Smallc 'answer' you speak of... when he's not too busy calling someone a liar, he seems to say a lot but never cites/substantiates it. I've read numerous references that speak to the narrowest point in the channel (and the particular island it associates with), but you're avoiding the key points I asked you for information on... you know, so you could reach beyond your cut/paste of the Akin/SunNews fluff piece. essentially, what you're calling your fact here is nothing more than another representation of that Enbridge graphic that shows a wide-open channel to the ocean... conveniently missing all the islands, conveniently overlooking the passage route that must factor all those islands. Hey Simple, are there different considerations for that route depending on the tanker size, or the additional increased number of tankers that must work within the existing passage traffic? an Enbridge 'fact' I came across, albeit quite dated, speaks to the types (classes) of tankers envisioned for Northern Gateway - Aframax, Suez-Max and VLCC (SuperTanker) are all in that mix. In a lot of different areas, you can find this same number of tankers/year intent... but these are all outbound (loaded with oil) intended My understanding is that there will be an equal number of inbound tankers bringing in the condensate that needs to be added to the dilbit at the origination point to allow it to 'flow' through the pipeline. My understanding from assorted articles is that this will be a 1:1 outbound/inbound tanker relationship as it doesn't appear there's any intent to store the condensate at Kitimat... that it gets shipped through the alternate side of the pipeline back to the origination point. Although I can't find something to state definitively how many inbound condensate tankers will be needed (or what size they'll be), the Enbridge number I've seen in several places has intentions for "250 oil tankers' outbound per year (across those 3 Aframax, Suez-Max and VLCC (SuperTanker) tanker types)... so, what, say another "200" a year (I'm totally speculating) for inbound condensate??? Say... ~450 tankers for oil/condensate a year. With a need to accomdate the largest of the largest size oil tankers, and this ~450 per year number additional traffic, within what currently is passing in/out of the Kitmat port today. Simple, your guy Akin, in your "fact piece" doesn't seem to bother with this level/degree of "fact" concern. And you, Simple? Simple, I openly acknowledge the datedness of the intended/anticipated outbound oil tanker traffic number I mentioned... and I can't find anything definitive to say how many inbound condensate tankers will required. Again, how about you Simple? Rather than you continuing to cut/paste that same Akin/SunNews article, can you help a MLW brother out here? Can you help with those inbound/outbound numbers and the split numbers that associate for those 3 respective sized tanker classes I mention... and per my original ask, the dwt sizing those ships can/will carry. Thanks in advance, Simple! Quote
Smallc Posted June 22, 2014 Report Posted June 22, 2014 then why did you drop that same article quote again... cause if that 'answer' is there it's before your latest repeat ask. I won't bother to (further) check for that actual Smallc 'answer' you speak of... when he's not too busy calling someone a liar I didn't do that, I asked if you thought I was lying... you should probably learn to stick to the topic though. Quote
waldo Posted June 22, 2014 Report Posted June 22, 2014 I didn't do that, I asked if you thought I was lying... you should probably learn to stick to the topic though. it was the second time you did so... the time I'm referring to was when you asked if I thought Enbridge was lying? By inference you're projecting that label as you're putting the info forward to counter something already stated... implying that if you/Enbridge aren't lying, then someone is, hey! As for your, 'what you should probably learn', what you should probably learn is that words and their labeling have consequences in regards inference/implication. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.