Keepitsimple Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 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. That's pretty disrespectful - in view of the fact that you rarely support your "arguments" - you simply ignore the facts that are presented and move on to another unsupported talking point. Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 That's pretty disrespectful - in view of the fact that you rarely support your "arguments" - you simply ignore the facts that are presented and move on to another unsupported talking point. I just followed the links back on the series of posts you're referencing... I don't read any "presented facts" you presume on... I read 'statements' being made. But let's cut to it: the only oil Canada imports is done so to support the needs of eastern provinces. Of course, the over-riding question is why would member 2.0 quite rather nonchalantly emphasize the intent for proposed east pipelines is to, similarly, export oil... without even questioning diverting refinery output (associated with the proposed east pipeline(s)), to stop the current practice of importing oil? I mean that should be done, right? Right? . Quote
overthere Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 Unlike TAPS, Trans Mountain and the expansion are/will be predominantly buried lines TAPS has long sections built above ground, about half the total length. The principal reason is permafrost conditions. There is no permafrost on the Gateway route. There are also four relatively short aboveground sections related to earthquake protection on known faultlines. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Argus Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 The fact is that our economy relies on oil and gas development. We need the jobs, and we need the money. No one can seriously suggest we're not going to find a way to get that oil and gas to market. No one at any level of power, regardless of how they're positioning themselves prior to an election, will want to forego that much money. It has to be gotten to markets. Pipelines are the safest and most economical way to do so. The only real discussion should be the safest route. I've seen tons of environmentalists critiizing all the existing proposals, but never seen any alternative suggestions other than "Let's just have more renewable energy!" which is the suggestion of a child. 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
Derek 2.0 Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 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... . I have no idea, I’m neither a seismologist or geologist……… "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"?" I would see the cost differential in terms of Earthquake “proofing” TAPS versus Northern Gateway as being attributed to several reasons…… First, during the construction of TAPS in the 70s the natural geography and terrain of Alaska, was lacking supporting infrastructure and made most of the build both very remote and difficult……with the pipeline, came much of the infrastructure that‘s in Alaska today (in much the same manner as the ALCAN highway did a generation before)…….Northern Gateway will have the benefits of modern ports, railways and highways etc. Second major difference would be technology……Unlike TAPS, Northern Gateway will benefit from CAD, satellite topography maps, GPS, robotic wielding machines etc….all things that reduce the every expensive workforce and increase efficiency. Third, TAPS, unlike Northern Gateway, has a greater percentage of it’s build along seismically active ground…..increasing the number of safeguards and design features (like you outlaid)….This is not the case with Northern Gateway (and Kinder Morgan). Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 I just followed the links back on the series of posts you're referencing... I don't read any "presented facts" you presume on... I read 'statements' being made. But let's cut to it: the only oil Canada imports is done so to support the needs of eastern provinces. Of course, the over-riding question is why would member 2.0 quite rather nonchalantly emphasize the intent for proposed east pipelines is to, similarly, export oil... without even questioning diverting refinery output (associated with the proposed east pipeline(s)), to stop the current practice of importing oil? I mean that should be done, right? Right? . Two reasons as highlighted in my links by several environmental groups, there isn’t vast sums of excess refining capacity in the refineries the oil is going to……second the terminus of these lines are in port cities. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 (edited) TAPS has long sections built above ground, about half the total length. The principal reason is permafrost conditions. There is no permafrost on the Gateway route. There are also four relatively short aboveground sections related to earthquake protection on known faultlines. Exactly.....nor is the Northern Gateway route over predominantly seismically active ground, unlike TAPS. Edited June 25, 2014 by Derek 2.0 Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 Exactly.....nor is the Northern Gateway route over predominantly seismically active ground, unlike TAPS. Oh, so Enbridge can now predict earthquakes within the ring of fire. Can I get a link to their predictions? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 Oh, so Enbridge can now predict earthquakes within the ring of fire. Can I get a link to their predictions? It's a map: Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 It's a map: Yes it is. I have a lot of experience with them. And your point? Quote
Smallc Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 Northern Gateway doesn't cross a fault line...Alaska Pipeline does. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 Yes it is. I have a lot of experience with them. And your point? What percentage of that map is also on the Ring of Fire? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 Northern Gateway doesn't cross a fault line...Alaska Pipeline does. And despite earthquakes, is still around and carrying product. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 What percentage of that map is also on the Ring of Fire? What percentage of a matchstick burns? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 What percentage of a matchstick burns? I thought you asked my point? So lend your experience in risk management and maps to this discussion. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 A plane could fly for a thousand miles in good weather, but then have to land in bad, and that's where the crash can happen. Can you see the parallels? Not a lot of quakes in the YEG area for sure. But there are on the west coast. It doesn't make a lot of difference where the accident happens. But I hasten to add, in this scenario, the most likely place for the accident to happen you are going to have a hell of a time even getting to to try to start the clean up. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 A plane could fly for a thousand miles in good weather, but then have to land in bad, and that's where the crash can happen. Can you see the parallels? Not a lot of quakes in the YEG area for sure. But there are on the west coast. It doesn't make a lot of difference where the accident happens. But I hasten to add, in this scenario, the most likely place for the accident to happen you are going to have a hell of a time even getting to to try to start the clean up. So you cede that the majority of the pipeline is not in the Ring of Fire, as such, is unlikely to be exposed to a major earthquake. Good, you’re learning. As to the portion that will be within the Ring of Fire, based on precedence surrounding the safety records of both the TAPS and the portion of the Trans Mountain line that is exposed, what is the likelihood of an earthquake negatively effecting the proposed Northern Gateway? This is where your claimed risk management skills kick in. As to your “parallel”, continuing on that meme, have we stopped manned flight because a tiny percent of aircraft in the history of aviation have crashed due to bad weather? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 So you cede that the majority of the pipeline is not in the Ring of Fire, as such, is unlikely to be exposed to a major earthquake. Good, you’re learning. As to the portion that will be within the Ring of Fire, based on precedence surrounding the safety records of both the TAPS and the portion of the Trans Mountain line that is exposed, what is the likelihood of an earthquake negatively effecting the proposed Northern Gateway? This is where your claimed risk management skills kick in. As to your “parallel”, continuing on that meme, have we stopped manned flight because a tiny percent of aircraft in the history of aviation have crashed due to bad weather? "What is the likelyhood"? neither you, nor I , nor Enbridge knows that. Here's how you would do a risk assessment: assume the life of the pipe, pull up old files of EQ's over that length of past history, and then build pipe that hopefully will survive. Or, you could just not bother with known EQ zones BTW, bad weather crashes make up a huge percentage of airplane crashes. Especially in Canada. Maybe you're learning. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 "What is the likelyhood"? neither you, nor I , nor Enbridge knows that. Here's how you would do a risk assessment: assume the life of the pipe, pull up old files of EQ's over that length of past history, and then build pipe that hopefully will survive. Or, you could just not bother with known EQ zones Perhaps you don't know, but the precedent of TAPS and Trans Mountain lend a suggestion. BTW, bad weather crashes make up a huge percentage of airplane crashes. Especially in Canada. Maybe you're learning. Yet, civil air travel has not been banned due to a tiny fraction of a percent of aircraft being lost due to bad weather. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 Perhaps you don't know, but the precedent of TAPS and Trans Mountain lend a suggestion. Yet, civil air travel has not been banned due to a tiny fraction of a percent of aircraft being lost due to bad weather. That's correct. They just learned to identify and fly around bad weather. Pipelines must do the same. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 That's correct. They just learned to identify and fly around bad weather. Pipelines must do the same. So aircraft don’t fly through bad weather? As to pipelines, based on the collective histories of TAPS and Trans Mountain, Northern Gateway looks in good steed. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 So aircraft don’t fly through bad weather? As to pipelines, based on the collective histories of TAPS and Trans Mountain, Northern Gateway looks in good steed. Aircraft have the means to avoid bad weather. Pipelines have the same means to avoid bad geography. Well used they both result in safety. Poorly used well... Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 Aircraft have the means to avoid bad weather. Pipelines have the same means to avoid bad geography. Well used they both result in safety. Poorly used well... And the current safety record of both TAPS and Trans Mountain in relation to your feared Earthquakes? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 And the current safety record of both TAPS and Trans Mountain in relation to your feared Earthquakes? Look at the energy east proposal Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 Look at the energy east proposal Why? We're talking about Northern Gateway correct? 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.