• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Mackcanuck last won the day on November 24 2017

Mackcanuck had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,800 Gaming the system

About Mackcanuck

  • Rank
    Canucks Second-Line
  • Birthday September 26

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    van. island
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

7,898 profile views
  1. Agreed, I am most worried about the Tankers carrying the 80,000 to 120,000 tonnes of Bitumen(750,000 Barrels)
  2. Meet you half way, 400/yr Again, did you read the link?? And as I said, It is not a one way trip, each tanker must come in, load, and then return back through the Strait, 148km round trip. On any given day there could be 3 tankers empty or full travelling through the Straight
  3. no I don't know what is on the ships, also in no way did I say I wanted to ban tanker traffic. What I want is to reduce the risk of catastrophe, not increase the risk. Look, you live in CGY, Increased tanker traffic in the Strait has no affect on you, I get that. I live on Vancouver Island, the increased tanker traffic is of great concern to me.
  4. From the link provided The Port of Vancouver is the most active in Canada. Ice free and deepwater, it is home to terminals for all manner of cargo: chemicals, containers, bulk goods, crude oil. A proposed new dock at Westridge Marine Terminal will triple the loading capacity. Aframax-sized tankers are the largest-class vessels allowed in the port at 245 metres in length and with a maximum capacity of 80,000 to 120,000 tonnes.
  5. Those other Commercial Freighters you talk of are not carrying 750,000 barrels of bitumen.
  6. From 50 tankers/yr to over 450 tankers/yr It is not a one way trip, they must come in and load and then leave that adds up to 900 trips thru the Salish Sea On any given day there will be 3 tankers either full or empty in the Strait, 148 km round trip from entering the Strait to exiting. More traffic in a small congested area through the prestigious Strait added to the 250 large commercial freighter/month adds up to a massive risk of environmental catastrophe. Did you bother to read the link??
  7. A 600% increase in tanker traffic isn't like adding another lane to the road that bisects through your property, It is more like having an 8 lane highway go through your backyard. give this a read
  8. When these multibillionaire's invested their money in the pipeline, they knew of the risks, all of the risks including protests, like every other pipeline built on Canadian soil. Now the Trudeau Government is guaranteeing these investors that the people will assume all risks, with BC the most to lose environmentally. Is Trudeau ready to guarantee that our tourism, fisheries and quality of life on the Coast is secure?? "Mr. Morneau appears more concerned in indemnifying a foreign corporation against risk to its investors than indemnifying British Columbia against the risk to our coast, to our environment, to tens of thousands of jobs," I am not in favour of increasing that evironmental risk to our provinces most heavily populated area, by having an increase of these massive tankers from 50/yr to over 450/yr
  9. "The federal finance minister is trying to use our government as an excuse, as the federal government puts taxpayer money on the line to backstop risks to private investors, while completely ignoring the risks to B.C."
  10. [Official] Toronto Blue Jays Major League Baseball thread

    He is sorry for his remarks “I go back to Toronto each off-season and feel renewed every time I cross the border to my home and native land. I would not be where I am now without the efforts of so many Canadian baseball people and the fans of Canadian baseball. “To James Paxton, the Blue Jays, the Toronto fans, the women and men all across Canada that work so hard to promote and support Canadian baseball, I am sorry for my selfish comments and I humbly ask for your forgiveness.”
  11. And that is?? The unknown chemist
  12. The problem is that any reasonably informed observer knows that there has been a huge amount of work done since the Royal Society of Canada (RSC) report was produced in 2015. I have written two blog posts describing advances in this field and was going to produce a long section describing all the advances since 2015. But then, lo and behold, Transport Canada went and did my work for me. Take a look at this incredible document they produced highlighting the millions of dollars of research the federal government has produced to fill in those “gaps” Mr. Heyman discusses. Now recognize Mr. Heyman oversees a major Ministry with dozens of senior civil servants paid to keep up to date on spills and spill response. Can you really believe that these senior civil servants failed to notice the over 60 research articles directly related to their field of responsibility published in the last few years? How did all his senior bureaucrats somehow not relay to him information about the thousands of hours and millions of dollars of research conducted by some of the best researchers in Canada and the US? Yet there he was appearing all over the media acting as if our information-base hadn’t progressed since 2015. Am I supposed to believe they completely missed all the advances in the science for the last half-decade? My second case involves Dr. Andrew Weaver, Leader of the Green Party of BC. As we know, Dr. Weaver is a former scientist. As a former scientist, Dr. Weaver knows that evidence-based decision-making requires one to balance all the information in a field and not simply to cherry-pick information that helps advance his preferred narrative. Yet that is precisely what Dr. Weaver has been doing on the diluted bitumen file. Here is Dr. Weaver from Power Play discussing the behaviour of dilbit in a marine spill. Scroll forward to 2 minutes : Now I won’t go deeply into his “diluted bitumen is not oil” shtick. My interest is in the second half of the sentence. Notice how he was being incredibly precise in his word choice. That was not by accident, but rather appears to represent him very carefully picking the biggest cherry off the tree. Technically, everything he said in the second half of the sentence is true, but in telling that truth he omits a lot. To explain, consider what I wrote in my previous post: A layman’s guide to the behaviour of diluted bitumen in a marine spill So yes, as Dr. Weaver suggests, diluted bitumen will sink when they form OPAs. But to do so they need to be exposed to high concentrations of fine silts and/or clays. This is something you don’t see over virtually the entire Salish Sea. To understand let’s take a quick look from the air at the Salish Sea, here is a great photo from NASA (caution big file) Look at how incredibly blue all the water is. Only that tiny area in the immediate outflow of the Fraser River has the types of sediments where OPAs would be an issue and they disappear almost right away into those essentially sediment-free waters. Now consider the Burrard Inlet which is also a beautiful blue in the photo, indicating virtually no sediment. That would be the area where the Burrard Inlet spill of 2007 occurred. That would be the spill where virtually no OPAs were formed and almost 95% of the spilled dibit was recovered. So much for “it sinks” and “we cannot clean up a spill“. Looking at Roberts Bank and south, sediment is not an issue there either, nor is it through the entire rest of the Salish Sea. Thus, what Dr. Weaver said on Power Play was technically correct: if a tanker spilled right in the middle of the Fraser River plume some of that spill may indeed sink. But that is not how he framed the discussion was it? He made this one very small and very specific area sound like it was the norm for the entire route. That is simply not true. As I have pointed out previously, Fisheries and Oceans Canada modeled an oil spill in the Salish Sea and concluded that the majority of the oil would stay on the surface rather than dispersing into the water column. That would mean that the floating oil would be recoverable using current spill response technologies. Listening to Dr. Weaver’s interviews over the last week he has repeatedly stressed the sinking scenario even though we now know that scenario only applies in a tiny bit of the Salish Sea, in what is the widest sea lanes in the entire route. My final case involves Ms. Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada. She has been a constant treat on the internet with one of her big talking points being about the transportation of bitumen by rail. Look at her timeline and it is full of comments about the safety of diluted bitumen. She thinks it can’t spill in a rail spill. Here is one example: In the last year, I have corrected Ms. May at least three times on Twitter and each time I have directed her to documentation she could read to get the information right. Each time she has ignored the information provided and continues to make unsupportable arguments. Now don’t get me wrong here, there is the tinniest nugget of truth in Ms. May’s barrage of confusion but you have to look really deep to discover it. Clearly what Ms. May has been talking about is a product called “neatbit”. For those not familiar with neatbit here is a great primer on the subject. To summarize, neatbit is raw bitumen transported in a heated rail car. As long as the rail car stays warm, the neatbit will flow, but once the rail car cools down it returns to its almost inert solid form. Neatbit thus addresses the biggest concerns about the overland transport of diluted bitumen (derailments and spills). A derailment into a river would pose little danger to the river as the material would solidify almost instantly upon contact with water and could be cleaned up with shovels and excavators while posing very little long-term risk to the environment. Now for the problem. While neatbit is a great solution to a serious problem it has some serious issues. Neatbit can only be shipped from a facility designed to heat and move neatbit. It then can only be shipped in specially-designed rail cars built specifically to carry neatbit and keep it hot the entire voyage. Finally it has to go directly to a refinery designed to accept neatbit. If you put neatbit on a ship, by the time that ship reaches its destination its hold will be as solid as the asphalt I drive my minivan on and just as easy to handle. To ship neatbit overseas would mean designing and building a whole new class of marine vessel. So when Ms. May claims that bitumen can be shipped by rail what she means is that a tiny pilot project with a small number of specially designed rail cars has been moving neatbit to one refinery on the Gulf Coast. The reality of the transportation industry is that virtually all the bitumen transported by rail goes either as “railbit” which is about 15% diluent and is transported by insulated rail cars and can’t go on ships or as “dilbit” which contains about 30% diluent and can be moved to ships. If rail cars with either of these products have an accident the result would be a spill that would be like any other oil spill. To be clear, there have been a lot of alternative ideas about how to make the shipping of raw bitumen by rail (including balls of bitumen and bitumen pucks) but none are out of the research stage. So when Ms. May makes her interesting claims about shipping bitumen by rail, it is time to tune her out because it is clear she appears to have no clue what she is talking about. Now isn’t that a bizarre recognition. The leader of a national political party (admittedly a fringe party) should not be making claims that are so easily demonstrated to be bunk. Reading what I have written I am saddened that our political leaders are so willing to shade the truth on such an important national topic. From omitting critical facts; to cherry picking preferred narratives; to outright confusion about how the product can be moved, the political scorecard on diluted bitumen is a sad one. I can only hope that as organizations like Transport Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada start broadcasting the truth about the material that more scientists and others will call out politicians when they try to push half-truths and misleading scenarios about the material. Only then can we come up with reasonable evidence-based policy options. This article is produced by an un-named source?? Hmmmm, I wonder why?? It could have been written by Snotley for all we know.
  13. Hard lessons for Kinder Morgan on First Nation rights in Trans Mountain pipeline project Legally, there is no veto. But in the evolving Canadian legal, regulatory and political arena, Kinder Morgan is learning some hard lessons from its pipeline project. Even where First Nations don’t hold all the power, a project is difficult to build without their consent
  14. NAFTA body calls for investigation into oilsands tailings enforcement