Northern Gateway Pipeline Approved

[WestCoastRunner]

... and I can't find anything definitive to say how many inbound condensate tankers will required.

Funny, you should mention this. An article appeared on the cbc website today stating that "A second pipe would flow east and carry 193,000 barrels of diluent (also known as condensate) a day."

It's a very informative article and it goes on to say:

"It is a twinned pipeline over a thousand kilometres, over some of the most rugged wilderness."

Two of the country's tallest mountain ranges, the Rockies and the Coast Mountains, need to be scaled and descended. Plus, there are creeks, rivers, lakes and ponds by the dozen."

[Smallc]

it was the second time you did so... the time I'm referring to was when you asked if I thought Enbridge was lying?

Yes, well, as KIS pointed out, you haven't actually shown anything that negates their claim so...if the shoe fits.

[waldo]

Yes, well, as KIS pointed out, you haven't actually shown anything that negates their claim so...if the shoe fits.

perfect!!! You mean their claim that says that can't actually verify their own claim because, apparently, "they're contractually bound". I also note none of youse guys will comment on the Coastal First Nations rep stating Enbridge has 'pumped the numbers'. In that regard, I made reference to the 3 ways Enbridge has pumped the numbers (including Metis groups (that don't have treaty rights), purposely extending on the corrider route to include more groups (that won't be directly affected by spill), and by including groups from Alberta.

Smallc, if your shoe fits, since Enbridge hasn't countered to negate this Coastal First Nation reps claim, is Enbridge lying?

Edited June 22, 2014 by waldo

[Smallc]

perfect!!! You mean their claim that says that can't actually verify their own claim because, apparently, "they're contractually bound". I also note none of youse guys will comment on the Coastal First Nations rep stating Enbridge has 'pumped the numbers'.

....and then went on to provide numbers that came to 58%.....yeah...those numbers eh?

And being contractually bound to not disclose something is quite normal...especially if other people don't like it. That's probably why it 'can't' be verified.

[waldo]

....and then went on to provide numbers that came to 58%.....yeah...those numbers eh?

And being contractually bound to not disclose something is quite normal...especially if other people don't like it. That's probably why it 'can't' be verified.

but everyone else is lying!!!

[Smallc]

You have nothing to disprove their statement, and numbers that seem to in fact prove it. Have fun with that.

[On Guard for Thee]

Funny, you should mention this. An article appeared on the cbc website today stating that "A second pipe would flow east and carry 193,000 barrels of diluent (also known as condensate) a day."

It's a very informative article and it goes on to say:

"It is a twinned pipeline over a thousand kilometres, over some of the most rugged wilderness."

Two of the country's tallest mountain ranges, the Rockies and the Coast Mountains, need to be scaled and descended. Plus, there are creeks, rivers, lakes and ponds by the dozen."

That condensate is called pentane. Here is a fact sheet on it. Dry reading but it doesn't really sound like something you want in your fishing stream even if it's JUST the back haul line that springs a leak.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0486.html

[Argus]

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?

Natives love money as much as anyone, and exploit their land any way they can make a buck. If that means commercial logging or mining, they're all for it, as long as they make money. They're not any better at conservation than the rest of us. And their reserves tend to be full of filthy, broken down houses with garbage strewn around them.

[WestCoastRunner]

Simple solution. If the weather is bad, the tankers don't move. Isn't that the rule in Vancouver?

Marine weather conditions are severe. Winter storms originate in the Gulf of Alaska bringing high waves throughout parts of the proposed tanker route, with winds PERSISTENTLY higher than 40 km/h. Highly unlikely Enbridge will not transport bitumen throughout the winter months.

[WestCoastRunner]

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...

This is a far cry from oil tankers being increased 10 fold to approximately 225 oil tankers per year. Not to mention that super tankers that can carry 2 million barrels each. These super tankers are as long as the Empire State building is tall.

The deep strait being navigated also provides salmon and halibut fishing grounds, conservancy islands, provincial parks,. Humpbacks, orcas, a buffet of shellfish - and coastal creatures, including the much-celebrated white Kermode bear, or spirit bear. populate these parts of BC.

Now, imagine an oil spill in these waters.

[TimG]

Now, imagine an oil spill in these waters.

Guess what? Oil tends to be found in places that require it be moved by water. If you want gas for you car you must support the idea that oil moves by water and that means there is a risk of a spill.

So if not Kitamat then where? Vancouver? Seattle? Alaska? Toronto?

You can't rationally oppose Gateway without explaining what alternatives you prefer?.

Simply shutting down the oil sands is not going to happen.

Edited June 23, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Guess what? Oil tends to be found in places that require it be moved by water. If you want gas for you car you must support the idea that oil moves by water and that means there is a risk of a spill.

So if not Kitamat then where? Vancouver? Seattle? Alaska? Toronto?

You can't rationally oppose Gateway without explaining what alternatives you prefer?.

Simply shutting down the oil sands is not going to happen.

Saint Jean NB. No need to move anything by water.

[Argus]

Marine weather conditions are severe. Winter storms originate in the Gulf of Alaska bringing high waves throughout parts of the proposed tanker route, with winds PERSISTENTLY higher than 40 km/h. Highly unlikely Enbridge will not transport bitumen throughout the winter months.

We're speaking of a very sheltered port, and inlet passages. You're not going to get the kind of rough water there you are out in the ocean, and according to their web site they are ice free all year.

[On Guard for Thee]

We have all had a look by now at this BS map endbridge tried to sell us. They must think we are pretty stupid to just erase 10K km's of islands off their map and think we wouldn't notice. What other little zingers will we find I wonder.

[TimG]

Saint Jean NB. No need to move anything by water.

Except Canada needs access to the Pacific markets as a well as the Atlantic.

I thought this letter should be a good remindeder for those that think that Trudeau would reject all pipelines to the Pacific:

http://justin.ca/justin-trudeau-why-the-cnooc-nexen-deal-is-good-for-canada/

Why is the CNOOC-Nexen deal good for Canada? Because Chinese and other foreign investors will create middle class Canadian jobs. Foreign investment raises productivity, and hence the living standards of Canadian families. More fundamentally, it is in Canada’s interest to broaden and deepen our relationship with the world’s second largest economy.

If not Kitimat it has to be Vancouver.

Edited June 23, 2014 by TimG

[Argus]

If not Kitimat it has to be Vancouver.

That's the thing. For all the 'horrific danger' of the northern line, the American environmentalist lobby is fighting the Kinder Morgan line just as hard, just as they're fighting the Line 9 east line and the keystone line. The issue isn't the danger of the pipelines, it's the effort to smother production at the oil sands.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Argus

[On Guard for Thee]

That's the thing. For all the 'horrific danger' of the northern line, the American environmentalist lobby is fighting the Kinder Morgan line just as hard, just as they're fighting the Line 9 east line and the keystone line. The issue isn't the danger of the pipelines, it's the effort to smother production at the oil sands.

Really? So what would you suggest we would put in the "energy east" pipeline, Newfie Screech?

[WestCoastRunner]

We're speaking of a very sheltered port, and inlet passages. You're not going to get the kind of rough water there you are out in the ocean, and according to their web site they are ice free all year.

Who's website? Enbridge?

You need to get your facts straight about the tanker route and don't believe everything Enbridge is saying:

The Douglas Channel/Wright Sound waters are subject to severe Arctic outflow winds. In addition there are maximum flood and ebb currents generated by the six-metre tidal range in Douglas Channel.

Here's a great flyover video that sets the record straight about the real route and adding some minor details (tongue in cheek). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3vxhnan_ZA

[WestCoastRunner]

Here are some more facts on this sheltered port and inlet passages. I think some folks here need to get their facts straight instead of listening to Enbridge:

"Wright Sound is the navigational confluence of five active shipping channels, “where all loaded super tankers will have to make the first of three hairpin turns greater than 90 degrees,” The logistics involved in navigating giant tankers past one another through the narrow channels leading into Wright Sound are very complicated.

"An average of four tankers per day will be navigating the Inside Passage year round, Enbridge has offered public assurances that supertankers could safely navigate the Inside Passage at speeds of up to 12 knots. At these speeds, supertankers can take six to eight kilometres, or between 30 minutes and a full-hour, to come to a complete stop."

“Supertankers will block waters where channels narrow and hairpin turns have to be navigated,” “These loaded supertankers, tugboats and steel toe lines will make it impossible for any other marine traffic to pass.” The high-risk route could be further complicated by inclement weather and an abundance of marine wildlife in the area.

"A marine biologist whose research is focused on threatened and endangered whales off of BC’s coast explains the danger of running supertankers through the narrow coastal channels near Kitimat. “Ironically enough, the humpback whales are attracted to these confined channels, where prey are aggregated, which is the stickiest part of the route.”

Rain and fog dramatically reduce visibility in this area. On average, the Raincoast records 4.5 metres of precipitation per annum – by comparison, Toronto receives less than one metre of precipitation annually. The tides can fluctuate up to eight metres – a change in height that is equal to a two-story building. “There simply isn’t any room for all these supertankers,” “What will they do when they have to pass each other?”

The bilge water that tankers use to maintain consistent buoyancy while the mass of their load is in constant flux. “This bilge will be pumped from the waters of heavily industrialized ports in China,” “Chemical and biological contaminants will be pumped onboard along with bilge water, along with foreign organisms and potentially invasive species. This bilge and all that it contains will later be dumped into the marine environment along the West Coast of Canada.”

As if the above isn't enough, consider this:

Working on the assumption that a large-scale spill is likely to occur, scientists have proved that bitumen bonds with sediment in water, causing it to sink to the bottom particularly when the surface of the water is disturbed by turbulence. In the event of a pipeline leak, loading accident or supertanker spill, bitumen will destroy the marine environment with little chance of recovery.”

[On Guard for Thee]

Except Canada needs access to the Pacific markets as a well as the Atlantic.

I thought this letter should be a good remindeder for those that think that Trudeau would reject all pipelines to the Pacific:

http://justin.ca/justin-trudeau-why-the-cnooc-nexen-deal-is-good-for-canada/

If not Kitimat it has to be Vancouver.

I'm not saying send it east for export. I'm saying send it east so we can stop importing from OPEC. Why should the east coast pay higher prices when we have oil in our own ground?

[Derek 2.0]

Who's website? Enbridge?

How about the city of Kitimat:

http://www.kitimat.ca/EN/main/business/invest-in-kitimat/port-of-kitimat.html

At 98 nautical miles in length, Douglas Channel is BC's largest coastal fjord. Large vessels have been safely transporting industrial products through these waters for over six decades. The narrowest passage on Douglas Channel is approximately 1.4 kilometres wide at Maitland Island, and the shallowest depth is just shy of 200 metres.

and some more figures:

http://www.kitimat.ca/EN/main/business/invest-in-kitimat/port-of-kitimat/statistics.html

Douglas Channel is a 90 nautical mile-long inland passage, ranging from 1.5-3 nm wide. The natural deep sea harbour is 130-180 metres deep and currently has four inner harbour anchorages and four holding areas. The Port of Kitimat has vehicle clearance to 320,000 DWT from a recent Transport Canada TERMPOL assessment.

[On Guard for Thee]

How about the city of Kitimat:

http://www.kitimat.ca/EN/main/business/invest-in-kitimat/port-of-kitimat.html

and some more figures:

http://www.kitimat.ca/EN/main/business/invest-in-kitimat/port-of-kitimat/statistics.html

1400 meters wide in places. That's about .75 of NM. You must be reading Enbridges map again.

[Derek 2.0]

1400 meters wide in places. That's about .75 of NM. You must be reading Enbridges map again.

The links provided are to the Municipality of Kitimat.......are you suggesting some form of discrepancy in the distances provided?

[On Guard for Thee]

The links provided are to the Municipality of Kitimat.......are you suggesting some form of discrepancy in the distances provided?

I'm suggesting if you know how to read and scale a map you can figure it out. Take a look at the clearances by Hartley Bay. You know, that place where the Queen of The North sank!

[Derek 2.0]

I'm suggesting if you know how to read and scale a map you can figure it out. Take a look at the clearances by Hartley Bay. You know, that place where the Queen of The North sank!

I can read a map......so are you suggesting the provided info is wrong?

And what of the Queen of the North? Methanol has been shipped through this very channel for nearly 30 years without incident, yet you point to a negligent BC Ferry bridge crew as evidence that the proposal isn’t safe?