Northern Gateway Pipeline Approved

[On Guard for Thee]

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?

I am suggesting that, and at the same time wondering if you think that only BC ferries could possibly have an negligent crew?

[Derek 2.0]

I am suggesting that, and at the same time wondering if you think that only BC ferries could possibly have an negligent crew?

Care to prove the provided distances are wrong? Did the Queen of the North have a pilot aboard and tugs alongside?

[On Guard for Thee]

One need only scale the map. Nope no pilot's aboard, but if BC ferries crews don't know the route they are sailing, who would? And can tugs control such large tankers in such narrow chanells in outflow winds which come up regularly in winter in that area? And having worked up there I know of what I speak and we aren't talking "gentle breezes". We're talking 40-50 knots.

[WestCoastRunner]

One need only scale the map. Nope no pilot's aboard, but if BC ferries crews don't know the route they are sailing, who would? And can tugs control such large tankers in such narrow chanells in outflow winds which come up regularly in winter in that area? And having worked up there I know of what I speak and we aren't talking "gentle breezes". We're talking 40-50 knots.

You might enjoy this read from a 'Master Mariner' from Comox. He has over 40 years experience in the international oil exploration and shipping industry. He discusses the proposed tanker route and provides some much needed clarification on the risks and shoots down some of Enbridge's proposals.

[Derek 2.0]

One need only scale the map. Nope no pilot's aboard, but if BC ferries crews don't know the route they are sailing, who would? And can tugs control such large tankers in such narrow chanells in outflow winds which come up regularly in winter in that area? And having worked up there I know of what I speak and we aren't talking "gentle breezes". We're talking 40-50 knots.

I think you need to read the findings of the Queen of the North inquiry……knowing or not knowing the channel had nothing to do with it…….As to rough weather, so rough that the accompanying tugs couldn’t control the tanker, that’s simple, the tankers won’t operate through the channel in those conditions…..seems simple enough.

[WestCoastRunner]

…….As to rough weather, so rough that the accompanying tugs couldn’t control the tanker, that’s simple, the tankers won’t operate through the channel in those conditions…..seems simple enough.

Sounds simple enough, except it's not. That's not how the weather works in these parts. Perhaps you should read some of the other posts here.

[Derek 2.0]

Sounds simple enough, except it's not. That's not how the weather works in these parts. Perhaps you should read some of the other posts here.

How have the Petrochemical tankers managed for nearly three decades without incident?

[On Guard for Thee]

I think you need to read the findings of the Queen of the North inquiry……knowing or not knowing the channel had nothing to do with it…….As to rough weather, so rough that the accompanying tugs couldn’t control the tanker, that’s simple, the tankers won’t operate through the channel in those conditions…..seems simple enough.

I have read the TSB report and it's clear what hapenned. The crew f'ed up. As to not going into bad weather, unfortunately the transit times exceed the forecast times especially with regard to outflows. Therefore they could get caught in situations the tugs can't handle.

[Derek 2.0]

I have read the TSB report and it's clear what hapenned. The crew f'ed up. As to not going into bad weather, unfortunately the transit times exceed the forecast times especially with regard to outflows. Therefore they could get caught in situations the tugs can't handle.

How many incidents can be attributed to large commercial vessels, including volatile petrochemical tankers, calling on Kitimat since the opening of the terminals nearly 30 years ago?

[On Guard for Thee]

How many incidents can be attributed to large commercial vessels, including volatile petrochemical tankers, calling on Kitimat since the opening of the terminals nearly 30 years ago?

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/pet_344_e_37905.html

This might keep you busy a while.

[Derek 2.0]

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/pet_344_e_37905.html

This might keep you busy a while.

I've already read it.....so how many incidents can be attributed to large commercial vessels, including volatile petrochemical tankers, calling on Kitimat since the opening of the terminals nearly 30 years ago?

By what percent will shipping increase over today’s current levels, with the proposed Northern Gateway?

[On Guard for Thee]

I've already read it.....so how many incidents can be attributed to large commercial vessels, including volatile petrochemical tankers, calling on Kitimat since the opening of the terminals nearly 30 years ago?

By what percent will shipping increase over today’s current levels, with the proposed Northern Gateway?

Huge increase. Then you could look up Enbridges pipeline incidents and you might just get nervous. Look at Kalamazoo. How did they manage to let that pipe "bleed" for so long without knowing anything about it?

[Derek 2.0]

Huge increase. Then you could look up Enbridges pipeline incidents and you might just get nervous. Look at Kalamazoo. How did they manage to let that pipe "bleed" for so long without knowing anything about it?

Define huge........What is the current annual traffic, and what is the proposed increase?

And what do Enbridge Pipeline incidents have to due with proposed tanker traffic, coupled with the current safety record of shipping in the area?

[On Guard for Thee]

Define huge........What is the current annual traffic, and what is the proposed increase?

And what do Enbridge Pipeline incidents have to due with proposed tanker traffic, coupled with the current safety record of shipping in the area?

Let's think about it, how does the oil get TO the tanker? Huge is some thing in the neighborhood of 2 tankers passing each day in those narrow chanells. How many go there now?

[hitops]

Huge increase.

That's good thing, if your concern is environmental, as rail causes more spills and more damage than pipe.http://globalnews.ca/news/1069624/how-do-crude-spills-compare-by-rail-truck-pipeline-you-may-be-surprised/

Oil is massively increasing by rail, and will continue to do so. Pipeline makes sense for every single camp on this issue, including both environmental and economic.

[Derek 2.0]

Let's think about it, how does the oil get TO the tanker?

Are you suggesting transporting crude, to tanker terminals, via rail would be safer?

Huge is some thing in the neighborhood of 2 tankers passing each day in those narrow chanells. How many go there now?

2 tankers each day? The proposals submitted have indicated 220 annual roundtrips…..365/220=?

And what evidence do you have that transit times through the narrows won’t be staggered?

As to the current level of commercial traffic, I have no idea, you said the increase will be “huge”…….So do you have data demonstrating this to be so?

[On Guard for Thee]

That's good thing, if your concern is environmental, as rail causes more spills and more damage than pipe.http://globalnews.ca/news/1069624/how-do-crude-spills-compare-by-rail-truck-pipeline-you-may-be-surprised/

Oil is massively increasing by rail, and will continue to do so. Pipeline makes sense for every single camp on this issue, including both environmental and economic.

Except the pipeline should be going east, if anywhere.

[Derek 2.0]

Except the pipeline should be going east, if anywhere.

I’m certain if it made economic sense you’d have companies proposing just that……..Would you rather crude transported in rail or pipeline?

[On Guard for Thee]

I’m certain if it made economic sense you’d have companies proposing just that……..Would you rather crude transported in rail or pipeline?

Ever heard of a company called Trans Canada Pipeline? They are proposing, just that. So do your homework a little bit before you post.

[On Guard for Thee]

Ever heard of a company called Trans Canada Pipeline? They are proposing, just that. So do your homework a little bit before you post.

http://www.transcanada.com/energy-east-pipeline.html

[Derek 2.0]

Ever heard of a company called Trans Canada Pipeline? They are proposing, just that. So do your homework a little bit before you post.

The TCPL was finished in the 1950s....Are you referring to Energy East? Maybe you’d best do your homework before you post....

None the less, when did pipelines become a zero-sum game?

Edited June 23, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[On Guard for Thee]

The TCPL was finished in the 1950s....Are you referring to Energy East? Maybe you’d best do your homework before you post....

None the less, when did pipelines become a zero-sum game?

If you read the link, you would know. Homework? Then post.

[Derek 2.0]

If you read the link, you would know. Homework? Then post.

So why is a West-East line better? Why can't both be built?

And to add, in the post I quoted, you stated:

Ever heard of a company called Trans Canada Pipeline?

So what company is proposing Energy East?

Edited June 23, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[On Guard for Thee]

So why is a West-East line better? Why can't both be built?

And to add, in the post I quoted, you stated:

So what company is proposing Energy East?

It's a company called Trans Canada Pipeline. And it's better in many ways. It cuts out Saudi oil expenditures as well as the east coast tanker traffic that delivers it. And just again have a look at a map, if you in fact know how to read them and look at the difference in the type of geography each covers. Let's see, across the prairies or over the mountains that are known to be prone to earthquakes, and into country that noone knows how a spill recovery team will get to. And then look at the water courses potentially impacted. It's not hard to figure out which is safer. And even easier. Eastbound a bunch of the pipe is already there.

[Derek 2.0]

It's a company called Trans Canada Pipeline.

No, TransCanada........there already is a TCPL......homework?

And it's better in many ways. It cuts out Saudi oil expenditures as well as the east coast tanker traffic that delivers it.

Really?

TransCanada Corp.’s proposed Energy East project has come under fire from environmental groups who say the company is overstating its benefits to eastern Canadians and that the project is primarily aimed at exporting crude.

And just again have a look at a map, if you in fact know how to read them and look at the difference in the type of geography each covers. Let's see, across the prairies or over the mountains that are known to be prone to earthquakes, and into country that noone knows how a spill recovery team will get to. And then look at the water courses potentially impacted. It's not hard to figure out which is safer. And even easier. Eastbound a bunch of the pipe is already there.

Oh yeah

Environmental groups are also gearing up to battle TransCanada on Energy East. Several groups have asked the Superior Court of Quebec to issue an injunction stopping TransCanada from doing construction-related drilling around Caouna, a town on the St. Lawrence River where the company plans to build an export terminal. The environmentalists say TransCanada’s project threatens beluga whales that calve in the area.

What were you saying about homework?