On Guard for Thee Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 I agree, Earthquakes are both bad and scary…….frankly, I feel all is lost and we should abandon the West Coast and move to the prairies. See ya. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 (edited) Due to the nature of my career I have been required I understand that technology has improved, for sure. Due to the nature of my career I have been required, quite happilly, to attend classroom training on "risk assesment/management" Of course step one there is dump any politics and deal with the facts as best you know them. And I have no political nor financial with any of the players involved. I just try to apply those same techniques of risk management. When I do that I find "east" is better than "west" You wish to deal with the facts…ok…..How many times has the current Trans Mountain pipeline ruptured due to an earthquake? Edited June 24, 2014 by Derek 2.0 Quote
waldo Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 You wish to desire with the facts…ok…..How many times has the current Trans Mountain pipeline ruptured due to an earthquake? you just boldly claimed the new proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline "will be safer than the existing Trans Mountain and Trans Alaska pipelines... you spoke of subsequent technological advancement. In my last post I gave you specifics as to the build/cost of the Trans Alaska pipeline, partiularly with earthquakes in mind. If you state the new proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline will be safer, how so... in your desire to "express with facts"? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 since you're mentioning the Trans-Alaska pipeline surviving that 7.9 quake... and you're emphasizing engineering advancements since it's 1977 build... will the new proposed Kinder Morgan TransMountain pipeline also... at least... build to that 1977 "standard"? With the pipeline above ground supported on telflon 'shoes' free to move across with width of underlying 'slider beams'... like that? Cause that cost $8 billion in 1977 dollars - but it was able to survice the 2002 quake that shifted the fault (through the pipeline corrider) 18 feet horizontally/2.5 feet vertically. And if not, why not? Care to advise what Kinder Morgan included in regards seismic risk as a part of its NEB submission? . Unlike TAPS, Trans Mountain and the expansion are/will be predominantly buried lines Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 You wish to deal with the facts…ok…..How many times has the current Trans Mountain pipeline ruptured due to an earthquake? And how many times has a You wish to deal with the facts…ok…..How many times has the current Trans Mountain pipeline ruptured due to an earthquake? I don't know. How many times has an airplane not crashed because the crew recognized a risk and changed their flightplan? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 you just boldly claimed the new proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline "will be safer than the existing Trans Mountain and Trans Alaska pipelines... you spoke of subsequent technological advancement. In my last post I gave you specifics as to the build/cost of the Trans Alaska pipeline, partiularly with earthquakes in mind. If you state the new proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline will be safer, how so... in your desire to "express with facts"? Where did I say that? I referenced the Northern Gateway having the benefit of engineering advancements. Quote
hitops Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 (edited) watch it! Careful! Apparently, the guy has some book learnin! So he says, anyway. Just a casual mention while presuming to pump his cred and demean the abilities of any bumpkins silly enough to challenge him! Hey I'm just proving that I can make arguments as good at you guys! Edited June 24, 2014 by hitops Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 And how many times has a I don't know. How many times has an airplane not crashed because the crew recognized a risk and changed their flightplan? Didn't you say above: Due to the nature of my career I have been required, quite happilly, to attend classroom training on "risk assesment/management" Of course step one there is dump any politics and deal with the facts as best you know them. And I have no political nor financial with any of the players involved. I just try to apply those same techniques of risk management. So if you don't know how many time the Trans Mountain pipeline has been negatively affected by earthquakes, how are you dealing with “facts” in your risk assessment/management theorem? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 Didn't you say above: So if you don't know how many time the Trans Mountain pipeline has been negatively affected by earthquakes, how are you dealing with “facts” in your risk assessment/management theorem? Do you think the trans mountain is the only pipeline in the world? Well I hate to dissolusion you but there are many others. Many that have been breached by EQ's. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 Didn't you say above: So if you don't know how many time the Trans Mountain pipeline has been negatively affected by earthquakes, how are you dealing with “facts” in your risk assessment/management theorem? And apparently you completely ignored the Enbridge?Kalamazoo horrorshow. That wasn't even an earth quake. Apparently these boys can screw up without any help from nature. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 Do you think the trans mountain is the only pipeline in the world? Well I hate to dissolusion you but there are many others. Many that have been breached by EQ's. Sure they have, I don't discount that, but how many times has the Trans Mountain pipeline been breached by an earthquake since it was built in the 1950s? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 And apparently you completely ignored the Enbridge?Kalamazoo horrorshow. That wasn't even an earth quake. Apparently these boys can screw up without any help from nature. Trans Mountain is not an Enbridge project.......and didn't you completely ignore TransCanada's pipeline safety record? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 Trans Mountain is not an Enbridge project.......and didn't you completely ignore TransCanada's pipeline safety record? Kalamazoo was an enbridge project. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 Kalamazoo was an enbridge project. Winnipeg was a TransCanada project. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 You have completely ignored the geographic reality. Go study those maps a bit more. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 You have completely ignored the geographic reality. Go study those maps a bit more. What reality is that? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 What reality is that? I'm sorry, you are becoming redundant. Go look at the maps is my best suggestion. Mountains/Prairies EQ zones/non EQ zones Less Imprted Oil/More Exported Oil. Many things you should explore. Quote
Smallc Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 In other words, in the face of facts you have nothing, so you want him to do the work for you. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 In other words, in the face of facts you have nothing, so you want him to do the work for you. Yep, that's right. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 I'm sorry, you are becoming redundant. Go look at the maps is my best suggestion. Mountains/Prairies EQ zones/non EQ zones Less Imprted Oil/More Exported Oil. Many things you should explore. First, Energy East, the line you support, will cross environmentally sensitive areas and the product shipped through it, like the Northern Gateway, will be sold on the international market…….I have stated these points, but you choose to ignore them Second, you point to the actual natural geography of the Northern Gateway. Does not the current TAPS and Trans Mountain pipelines traverse similar conditions? If you feel these conditions preclude the Northern Gateway, I expect you’d be in favour of decommissioning these existing routes……Of course, you’ve yet to provide any data demonstrating TAPS and Trans Mountain have caused serious, negative environmental impacts in their ~40 & 60 years of service. Third, you’ve pointed to the potential impact caused by a major earthquake as a reason to reject the Northern Gateway……yet you can’t demonstrate a negative impact caused by the TAPS and Trans Mountain lines, of which, both traverse through the same “ring of fire” Fourth you point to the potential hazards of tankers going through the Douglas Channel, but can’t point to any examples of a major or minor incident involving commercial shipping, including hazardous Petrochemical tankers, traveling those very waters for decades. You state you have real-life experience in risk mitigation, obtained through the use of “facts”, yet you can’t provide a single example to support your alleged concerns……would that not run counterintuitive to your claimed past? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 In other words, in the face of facts you have nothing, so you want him to do the work for you. A common theme no doubt Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 First, Energy East, the line you support, will cross environmentally sensitive areas and the product shipped through it, like the Northern Gateway, will be sold on the international market…….I have stated these points, but you choose to ignore them Second, you point to the actual natural geography of the Northern Gateway. Does not the current TAPS and Trans Mountain pipelines traverse similar conditions? If you feel these conditions preclude the Northern Gateway, I expect you’d be in favour of decommissioning these existing routes……Of course, you’ve yet to provide any data demonstrating TAPS and Trans Mountain have caused serious, negative environmental impacts in their ~40 & 60 years of service. Third, you’ve pointed to the potential impact caused by a major earthquake as a reason to reject the Northern Gateway……yet you can’t demonstrate a negative impact caused by the TAPS and Trans Mountain lines, of which, both traverse through the same “ring of fire” Fourth you point to the potential hazards of tankers going through the Douglas Channel, but can’t point to any examples of a major or minor incident involving commercial shipping, including hazardous Petrochemical tankers, traveling those very waters for decades. You state you have real-life experience in risk mitigation, obtained through the use of “facts”, yet you can’t provide a single example to support your alleged concerns……would that not run counterintuitive to your claimed past? 1. Certainly some productt will be shipped. But the 85 % of product we import from Saudi et al will be supplied by our own product 2. Why put more pipe through difficult terrain and take those riske when we have a choice 3. ditto number 2 4. Because we currently have a moratorium on tankers in that area Why do we have to repeat the same info over and over? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 1. Certainly some productt will be shipped. But the 85 % of product we import from Saudi et al will be supplied by our own product 85% reduction in imports? You have a link? 2. Why put more pipe through difficult terrain and take those riske when we have a choice Why is it difficult? Said terrain hasn’t caused any serious impediments to Trans Mountain and TAPS 3. ditto number 2 How many ruptures in the Trans Mountain and TAPS have been caused by earthquakes in 60 & 40 years of existence? 4. Because we currently have a moratorium on tankers in that area And one would assume the moratorium will be lifted. Why do we have to repeat the same info over and over? That’s easy, you don’t address counter points and offer only unfounded political taking points. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 85% reduction in imports? You have a link? Why is it difficult? Said terrain hasn’t caused any serious impediments to Trans Mountain and TAPS How many ruptures in the Trans Mountain and TAPS have been caused by earthquakes in 60 & 40 years of existence? And one would assume the moratorium will be lifted. That’s easy, you don’t address counter points and offer only unfounded political taking points. You apparently have a problem with numbers. 85% of oil refined on the east coast is imported. It's in the link. Ansd it seems up to a minute ago you weren't even aware of the moratorium. You need to do some homework. And maybe be quiet until you do. Quote
waldo Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 Unlike TAPS, Trans Mountain and the expansion are/will be predominantly buried lines the new proposed (larger) Kinder Morgan pipeline will be closer to the Fraser River, raising concerns about an earthquake driven oil spill in the Fraser River. It was you that drew pointed reference to the Trans Alaska pipeline having survived a 7.9 registered quake... except you didn't bother to speak to the type of above ground/teflon pads/rolling slider construction approach that Trans Alaska pipeline was built with. I also asked you about the seismic risk assessment Kinder Morgan provided as a part of its NEB submission... and my bad in the other post... I meant to say Northern Gateway, but wrote 'Kinder Morgan'... since I quoted your own reference to Northern Gateway, you could have corrected that on the fly but, yes, I did transpose the two. Let me correct that in regards this sub-focus on earthquakes: "you just boldly claimed the new proposed "Northern Gateway" pipeline "will be safer than the existing Trans Mountain and Trans Alaska pipelines... you spoke of subsequent technological advancement (since their builds). In my last post I gave you specifics as to the build/cost of the Trans Alaska pipeline, particularly with earthquakes in mind. If you state the new proposed "Northern Gateway" pipeline will be safer than that, how so... in your desire to, as you stated, "express with facts"?" . Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.