ReeferMadness Posted February 28, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 No, but I do have plumbing in my house. That's an excellent analogy. What you're missing is that the operator is in Alberta and the leak is in Michigan. If the leak is in your house, you're going to err on the side of caution. Apparently, if the leak is somewhere else, you're just going to screw around with it until someone phones you to tell you there's a leak. And if the leak happens to be at night and nobody finds it for 18 hours, oh well! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 No, actually it sounds like the geniuses at Enbridge had no business operating a pipeline at all. I'm trying to imagine how all of this went down. Operator: There is an alarm that may indicate a leak. We should shut it down until someone can visually verify. Manager: No way, that will cost us too much money. Just pressurize it and shut it off. Operator: That didn't work. Manager: Well just keep on doing it for another 18 hours. If there's really a leak, someone will tell us about it. Michigan resident, phoning Enbridge: Ummm, could you tell us when the toxic sludge pouring into the river is going to stop? Please continue to have these fake conversations with yourself because you're really no good at having real conversations with anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Please continue to have these fake conversations with yourself because you're really no good at having real conversations with anyone else. So lets hear your input on how the scenario did play out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 So lets hear your input on how the scenario did play out. I already posted that. You're free to go back and read if you wish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 I already posted that. You're free to go back and read if you wish Well we already know what happened and it pretty much points to incompetence on the part of Enbridge and that's why it cost them so much money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Well we already know what happened and it pretty much points to incompetence on the part of Enbridge and that's why it cost them so much money. It cost them because that is a liability that comes with the job. No risk...no reward. They usually make a couple billion in profit per year so losing 1 billion for a one time event is not going to bankrupt them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 It cost them because that is a liability that comes with the job. No risk...no reward. They usually make a couple billion in profit per year so losing 1 billion for a one time event is not going to bankrupt them Well with all that profit you would think they could afford to not make such screw ups. Certainly doesn't bode well for their PR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Well with all that profit you would think they could afford to not make such screw ups. Certainly doesn't bode well for their PR. Didn't stop them from getting Line 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Didn't stop them from getting Line 9 Let's hope they learned a lesson in Michigan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted February 28, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Let's hope they learned a lesson in Michigan. There is no reason to believe that is true. One MLW member (I can't recall who) said he saw an Enbridge environmental video and it didn't even mention the Kalamazoo disaster. If they can't acknowledge it, they won't learn from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 There is no reason to believe that is true. One MLW member (I can't recall who) said he saw an Enbridge environmental video and it didn't even mention the Kalamazoo disaster. If they can't acknowledge it, they won't learn from it. That, if true, would be the old out of sight, out of mind approach. And we all know how ineffective that is these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 It cost them because that is a liability that comes with the job. No risk...no reward. They usually make a couple billion in profit per year so losing 1 billion for a one time event is not going to bankrupt them That's just one spill of many. Incompetence is the issue: history-of-enbridge-spills/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) It cost them because that is a liability that comes with the job. No risk...no reward. They usually make a couple billion in profit per year so losing 1 billion for a one time event is not going to bankrupt them True...the many decades of permanent environmental damage to rivers and water shed by hydro projects hasn't even been assessed, let alone paid for. But hydro production still enjoys wide support and utilization. Edited February 28, 2016 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 True...the many decades of permanent environmental damage to rivers and water shed by hydro projects hasn't even been assessed, let alone paid for. But hydro production still enjoys wide support and utilization.But the damage to rivers and watersheds by ruptured pipelines certainly has been assessed, and power lines don't hold a candle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 The collective damage caused by hydro dams is without doubt, many, many times greater than what has been caused by ruptured pipelines. It's not even close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) That's just one spill of many. Incompetence is the issue: history-of-enbridge-spills/ Jacee....looking at the incidents it's clear that the VAST majority occurred in the US where I have shown that even the NTSB has cited the weak standards for pipeline welding and repairs. You will see the claim in the report here http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20120710.aspxOne of the few Canadian examples shown was in Alberta where it says the Alberta Flood caused the rupture. Edited February 28, 2016 by Accountability Now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 It seems like you would err on the side of of caution, doesn't it? This doesn't give me warm and fuzzy feelings about the pipeline industry in general and Enbridge in particular.Let the free market sort it out. If it's such a big problem people will stop buying oil. /s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted February 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 Let the free market sort it out. If it's such a big problem people will stop buying oil. /s If people were forced to face the consequences of their burning oil, they would stop buying it. The problem is that the consequences are widely spread over space and time so everyone can treat it as someone else's problem. Try to introduce even a tiny carbon tax (which might cover 1/10 of the cost of the actual damage due to fossil fuel use) and the premier of Saskatchewan throws a temper tantrum. The free market would sort it out if oil were priced appropriately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 The collective damage caused by hydro dams is without doubt, many, many times greater than what has been caused by ruptured pipelines. It's not even close. I grew up swimming in the bay above a hydro dam and I'm healthy as a horse. Go jump in the Kalamazoo river for a few days and let us know how you feel. ( Actually don't really do that. Just making an obvious point) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted February 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 True...the many decades of permanent environmental damage to rivers and water shed by hydro projects hasn't even been assessed, let alone paid for. But hydro production still enjoys wide support and utilization. The collective damage caused by hydro dams is without doubt, many, many times greater than what has been caused by ruptured pipelines. It's not even close. You can't compare dams to just pipelines - you'd have to compare damage from hydro power to damage from oil and gas. And you're right - it isn't even close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 (edited) You can't compare dams to just pipelines - you'd have to compare damage from hydro power to damage from oil and gas. And you're right - it isn't even close. We were talking about ruptured pipelines, not your hobby horse, and of course if we are going to look at the entire industry we would also have to consider the positives it has given us. But i don't think that this is possible for you. Edited February 29, 2016 by poochy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted February 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 We were talking about ruptured pipelines, not your hobby horse, and of course if we are going to look at the entire industry we would also have to consider the positives it has given us. But i don't think that this is possible for you. Ruptured pipelines is just one of a long list of problems with the fossil fuel industry. Maybe you've noticed the huge economic dislocation recently caused almost entirely by wildly gyrating oil prices. Yes, of course there have been positives due to fossil fuels - that's why we've used them. The problem is that the profits have been privatized while the costs have been mainly dumped across time and space. If fossil fuels were priced to factor in the real costs, they would disappear in a few decades. But currently, we have a premier in Canada throwing a temper tantrum over even a moderate price on carbon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 But currently, we have a premier in Canada throwing a temper tantrum over even a moderate price on carbon.Why should Wall co-operate on a carbon tax when BC and Quebec refuse to co-operate on pipelines? Seems to me you expectations of co-operation are quite self serving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 Why should Wall co-operate on a carbon tax when BC and Quebec refuse to co-operate on pipelines? Seems to me you expectations of co-operation are quite self serving. Seems to me you are attempting to try to conflate two separate issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 Seems to me you are attempting to try to conflate two separate issues.Please explain why Wall should support a national carbon tax given the fact that he does not believe it is an useful tool to deal with climate change? Why should he care about solidarity with other Canadians when such arguments mean nothing to people in BC and Quebec? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.