Northern Gateway Pipeline Canned by Trudeau

[On Guard for Thee]

You are showing your ignorance again. Crude is a relative stable and flexible form of hydrocarbons which makes it safer to transport than most refined product. On top of that refined product would require many more pipelines to get the product to market which would multiply the higher risk associated with more volatile products.

As for Kalamazoo, a single failure is not a reason to abandon a technology. If that was the case nothing new would ever be built. The question is how to manage pipelines to ensure such an incident does not happen again.

Not quite. Dilbit contains diluent to get it through a pipeline, so you need a twin pipeline to retrieve the naphtha or whatever is being used. Plus crude floats, dilbit sinks, as was demonstrated in Kalamazoo as has be already mentioned here.

[TimG]

Again - you don't bother to read what I wrote. Why even bother with your idiotic response? Stop wasting my time until you go and read what happened in Kalamazoo.

I did. That does not change anything I said about the dangers of transporting diesel or other highly volatile carbon compounds. The only refinery that makes sense in Alberta is one that supplies the market in Western Canada/North Western US. Refineries on the BC coast would be more viable but that requires pipelines to the BC coast. Edited January 12, 2016 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

I did. That does not change anything I said about the dangers of transporting diesel or other highly volatile carbon compounds. The only refinery that makes sense in Alberta is one that supplies the market in Western Canada/North Western US. Refineries on the BC coast would be more viable but that requires pipelines to the BC coast.

Tarsand sludge may not be explosive itself but the toxic solvents they add to make it flow are.

Check out the MSDS sheet for dilbit.

Carcinogenic. Mutagenic. Emrbyotoxic.

No, thanks.

[TimG]

Carcinogenic. Mutagenic. Emrbyotoxic.

So is gasoline and virtually every other industrial chemical. We live with these risks because these chemicals provide benefits which means it is not enough to claim a risk in order to justify a ban. The oil sands have been turned to a phony cause by self righteous activists that need to feel they are "doing something". They have different chemical properties than other sources of energy which means they need to be managed differently but they are not 'more toxic' than the alternatives. Edited January 13, 2016 by TimG

[Argus]

Not sure why you have to be so insulting when you presumably want to discuss issues with other people....

Well, he was responding to someone who was being insulting. But I guess you hadn't noticed that since you agree with him.

[Argus]

And sex has nothing to do with babies.

I'm beginning to think you don't know anything about sex, either. Which, come to think of it, isn't surprising.

[capricorn]

They have different chemical properties than other sources of energy which means they need to be managed differently but they are not 'more toxic' than the alternatives.

A concept too simple for some people to grasp and for others its just willful blindness.

[ReeferMadness]

So is gasoline and virtually every other industrial chemical. We live with these risks because these chemicals provide benefits which means it is not enough to claim a risk in order to justify a ban. The oil sands have been turned to a phony cause by self righteous activists that need to feel they are "doing something". They have different chemical properties than other sources of energy which means they need to be managed differently but they are not 'more toxic' than the alternatives.

It's not as bad as dilbit but I agree gasoline is nasty stuff too.

Hey, I have a great idea! How about all the people who are afraid to let go of fossil fuels actually open their minds to the possibilities and help figure out how to reduce and gradually eliminate them? I'm sure once people yank their heads out of the sand and actually look for solutions instead of problems, it's easier than they think.

[ReeferMadness]

They have different chemical properties than other sources of energy which means they need to be managed differently but they are not 'more toxic' than the alternatives.

And you know that how exactly? Here.

The exact composition of dilbit is anyone’s guess since the tar sands industry claims that the identity of the diluting chemicals is a trade secret and does not disclose that information.

Just like fracking fluid. The good people who poison the environment don't even have to tell us what's in the poison because it's a "trade secret". How convenient.

A concept too simple for some people to grasp and for others its just willful blindness.

Too simple? I just love the way "some people" pull shit out of their butt, never back up their claims with any links and then sneer at those who do.

[ReeferMadness]

I'm beginning to think you don't know anything about sex, either. Which, come to think of it, isn't surprising.

Awwww. Don't like the performance of your energy shares lately?

That's OK. It's all Rachel Notley's fault.

[TimG]

Hey, I have a great idea! How about all the people who are afraid to let go of fossil fuels actually open their minds to the possibilities and help figure out how to reduce and gradually eliminate them?

I am all for switching to alternatives as soon as an alternative is found that can replace fossil fuels in terms of reliability, performance and price. That means I fully support government supported R&D into any number of different options. What I oppose are attempts to force people to use sub-standard technology that can't meet our need in its current form simply because some people have a phobia when it comes to fossil fuels.

[TimG]

And you know that how exactly? Here.

Your source is hardly credible. You would not accept report produced by an oil company so why do you expect anyone else to accept a report produced by an environmental NGO with an ax to grind?

Just like fracking fluid. The good people who poison the environment don't even have to tell us what's in the poison because it's a "trade secret". How convenient.

Except they do: http://www.halliburton.com/public/projects/pubsdata/Hydraulic_Fracturing/fluids_disclosure.html Edited January 13, 2016 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

The oil sands have been turned to a phony cause by self righteous activists that need to feel they are "doing something". They have different chemical properties than other sources of energy which means they need to be managed differently but they are not 'more toxic' than the alternatives.

"oil sands". I see the PR people in Alberta have trained you well.

Tell me - do you think the editors of Scientific American have bought into the "phony cause" of the tar sands? Here's what they have to report about dilbit.

The EPA also cited its experience from cleaning up after the spill of tar sands oil from a pipeline near the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. This pipeline, smaller than Keystone XL, managed to spill some 20,000 barrels in 2010, much of which ended up at the bottom of the river. Despite three years of clean up effort, the river will have to be dredged because the oil sands crude "will not appreciably biodegrade," Giles wrote. In other words, the kind of microbes that chewed up the oil from BP's blown out Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico could find no purchase on diluted bitumen from Alberta.

Are you going to dredge the Strait of Georgia?

[TimG]

"oil sands".

The produce oil from the those sands - not tar. Calling them 'tar sands' is a propaganda exercise.

Tell me - do you think the editors of Scientific American have bought into the "phony cause" of the tar sands? Here's what they have to report about dilbit.

Scientific American has turned in a shill for any number of trendy causes. I lost all respect for the publication years ago. In any case, simply stating that the material does not biodegrade is not evidence of a problem.

Are you going to dredge the Strait of Georgia?

Why would it need to be dredged? Where are the long term studies that show there are significant harms if it is just left there? Edited January 13, 2016 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

The produce oil from the those sands - not tar. Calling them 'tar sands' is a propaganda exercise.

Do you ever read anything? They were called the tar sands for decades until someone figured out that the term oil sands sounded nicer.

According to Alberta oil historian David Finch, everyone called them the tar sands until the 1960s, and both “tar sands” and “oil sands” were used interchangeably until about 10 years ago, when the terminology became horribly politicized.

Scientific American has turned in a shill for any number of trendy causes. I lost all respect for the publication years ago. In any case, simply stating that the material does not biodegrade is not evidence of a problem. Why would it need to be dredged? Where are the long term studies that show there are significant harms if it is just left there?

Very good, then. So you think that it's OK to spread this stuff around until someone proves that there is significant harm. Sort of like the precautionary principle in reverse. Since you're OK with that, I think you should volunteer to have the stuff spread in your backyard! After all, there's no studies that show significant harm, right?

[TimG]

until someone figured out that the term oil sands sounded nicer.

Oil sands is more accurate because that is what comes out. In any case, the use of the word 'tar sands' today is a political statement and you hardly criticize someone else for using another term. Call it bitumen if you want a neutral term.

Very good, then. So you think that it's OK to spread this stuff around until someone proves that there is significant harm. Sort of like the precautionary principle in reverse.

What I am saying is demanding that something be banned because of unknown harms that might be caused by a hypothetical worst case scenario is unreasonable. The reasonable response is to figure out what needs to be done to ensure that spills don't happen in the first place while allowing a product that is essential to our economy to be shipped. Edited January 13, 2016 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

What I am saying is demanding that something be banned because of unknown harms that might be caused by a hypothetical worst case scenario is unreasonable. The reasonable response is to figure out what needs to be done to ensure that spills don't happen in the first place while allowing a product that is essential to our economy to be shipped.

Well, isn't that nice. So, you have no objection to having your backyard coated in dilbit then? After all, you wouldn't want to worry about some "unknown harm" that may be caused by a "hypothetical worst case scenario".

Edited January 13, 2016 by ReeferMadness

[TimG]

Well, isn't that nice. So, you have no objection to having your backyard coated in dilbit then? After all, you wouldn't want to worry about some "unknown harm" that may be caused by a "hypothetical worst case scenario".

Can't you understand the difference between deliberately dumping something unknown effects and living with the risk that if things go wrong you could have to live with the stuff? A more suitable question is whether I would OK with a pipeline running in the lane behind my house and my answer is I would have no issue with it if it made economic sense to put a pipeline through there. Edited January 13, 2016 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

Can't you understand the difference between deliberately dumping something unknown effects and living with the risk that if things go wrong you could have to live with the stuff? A more suitable question is whether I would OK with a pipeline running in the lane behind my house and my answer is I would have no issue with it if it made economic sense to put a pipeline through there.

Good for you. And when you have your own planet, you can go ahead and pollute it all you want.

Personally, I'm not in favour of wrecking the planet just to avoid some hypothetical worst case slowdown in the economy. Get back to me when the long term studies are done.

[On Guard for Thee]

Can't you understand the difference between deliberately dumping something unknown effects and living with the risk that if things go wrong you could have to live with the stuff? A more suitable question is whether I would OK with a pipeline running in the lane behind my house and my answer is I would have no issue with it if it made economic sense to put a pipeline through there.

So lets make it make economic sense in this way as well, if your lane way pipeline bursts, lets let the company that put it there bear the full cost of cleaning up the mess. Keep their hands off taxpayers money.

[TimG]

Personally, I'm not in favour of wrecking the planet just to avoid some hypothetical worst case slowdown in the economy.

Personally, I am not in favour of living in caves and eating bugs because that is what we would be reduced to if we refused to take risks. Risks are impossible to avoid in life and the only reasonable question when faced with risks is how can they be managed. In the case of pipelines it is pretty clear that they can be managed reasonably and the people claiming they represent the 'destruction of the planet' peddling incoherent nonsense. Edited January 13, 2016 by TimG

[msj]

Well, he was responding to someone who was being insulting. But I guess you hadn't noticed that since you agree with him.

Hadn't read the post since I did not know who was being quoted since he did a poor quote job on it.

Still unnecessary and two wrongs and all that....

[waldo]

Personally, I am not in favour of living in caves and eating bugs because that is what we would be reduced to if we refused to take risks. Risks are impossible to avoid in life and the only reasonable question when faced with risks is how can they be managed. In the case of pipelines it is pretty clear that they can be managed reasonably and the people claiming they represent the 'destruction of the planet' peddling incoherent nonsense.

it's always telling to me when advocates continue to focus solely on the pipelines and ignore the actual ocean tanker impact. In this latter case of Trans Mountain, that is the principal reason the BC government has come down against it - apparently, Kinder Morgan has determined it doesn't need to respond to ongoing requests to provide a comprehensive accounting of plans/processes it might presume to use to manage an actual tanker leak - go figure!

[overthere]

After all, in 60+ years of tanker traffic from the 60+ years that this pipeline has been running there have been hundreds thousands many a lot of countless who can keep track a multitude zero tanker spills.

Shipping oil by tanker is a brand new idea so Kinder Morgan is going to have to figure this out, how to get oil from A to B safely. The Americans have done a bit of it, with around 22 Billion gallons of oil transiting nearby Puget Sound per year. Maybe they would have some ideas.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... The Americans have done a bit of it, with around 22 Billion gallons of oil transiting nearby Puget Sound per year. Maybe they would have some ideas.

Big difference there...the Americans had the will to git 'r done. Canada...not so much.