Condensate spill in the East China Sea - are we risking this in BC?

[The Lock]

For the record, I'm more on the fence than anything when it comes to a pipeline.

 

Short term, there is clearly benefits economically to be gained and it's not stupid to want those benefits. Long term, it'll be a pipe in the ground that does nothing other than being a pipe in a ground and it's not stupid to want there to not be a pipe in the first place. lol

[I.Am.Ironman]

1 hour ago, Gnarcore said:

No...you can still be against the expansion and the 7x increase in tanker traffic and not have to give up using fossil fuels. 

 

Getting 1/12th of the share for it is not worth the risk.  Alberta can pay up and then I'm game. 

Is that the actual figure?

 

IMO BC needs its fair share of revenue for taking on the risk to our environment and coastline. I'm not opposed to it but BC needs its fair share and adequate spill plans/finances in place.

[Heretic]

1 minute ago, inane said:

So we should just keep digging until we flat run out and then deal with this issue.

Great plan.

That's like getting your paycheque, blindly spending all your money until you're broke and saying 'huh, guess I need to deal with this now'.

You said it, not me.

 

A few years ago, it was said that we have only 53 years of oil left, now the same people that said that, say they were wrong.

 

We will not run out of oil - we will shift to renewable resources long before that.

 

 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 minute ago, inane said:

It's a complicated issue but the bottom line is we're selfish and short sighted to spend time/money/resources expanding pipelines for a finite resource when we have alternatives. It's just mind blowingly stupid.

I guess then we can consider.    

 

instead of jumping right into university after high school, going out working a ton of hours, saving money so that you can enter school debt free and with a head start is mind blowing you stupid. 

[RRypien37]

This is why I stopped eating seafood a few years ago. The oceans are already so incredibly polluted as it stands, you are pretty much poisoning yourself every time you eat any. 

[The Lock]

2 minutes ago, RRypien37 said:

This is why I stopped eating seafood a few years ago. The oceans are already so incredibly polluted as it stands, you are pretty much poisoning yourself every time you eat any. 

To be honest, if I stress myself out on what I eat, I feel like I'd die a lot sooner due to the added stress...

 

Besides. sushi's my favourite food 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

18 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I'll keep an eye out for that in the AB PC platform... my guess is it will be silent on this kind of thing but we'll see.

 

Prior to prentice debatable it was constantly brought up. Even fraser institute was calling it out. 

 

Quote

Even if it did that kind of thing still doesn't out weight the spill risk imo, dilbit is just too dangerous given the state of the cleanup tech.

Canada doesn’t even supply our own demand. We have tankers coming in every day shipping is oil. Yeah there’s risk but that’s why we need to take precautions to minimize the risk. 

 

Theres still demand for oil, so while there is that demand we might as well make it as effiencient as possible and as make as much profit as possible while there’s still a market for it. The amount of revenue it will create can give Canadians a huge head start. 

[JM_]

9 minutes ago, I.Am.Ironman said:

Is that the actual figure?

 

IMO BC needs its fair share of revenue for taking on the risk to our environment and coastline. I'm not opposed to it but BC needs its fair share and adequate spill plans/finances in place.

depends on what you include in the calc - its about 8% (1/12) if you include just oil royalties but sometimes Kinder Morgan tries to include projected numbers on jobs and taxes which takes it up to 12% but those additional numbers on top of royalties are highly speculative. This is the KM numbers (https://www.transmountain.com/benefits)

 

So just using Kinder Morgans numbers they claim BC gets $285 million per year all-in (projected oil revenue, jobs, taxes, etc.) but they don't include an oil price in that calc. But say its accurate, our fishery revenue is over1 billion per year in landed and farmed fish (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/stats/facts-Info-16-eng.htm).

 

So what in the AB plan is there to replace that, or even a portion of it if we get widespread contamination from condensate? Or tar balls on the ocean floor?

 

 

[JM_]

10 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Canada doesn’t even supply our own demand. We have tankers coming in every day shipping is oil. Yeah there’s risk but that’s why we need to take precautions to minimize the risk. 

 

Theres still demand for oil, so while there is that demand we might as well make it as effiencient as possible and as make as much profit as possible while there’s still a market for it. The amount of revenue it will create can give Canadians a huge head start. 

OK so you recognize that there is a risk. If the BC NDPs review shows that there is no way to clean up a dilbit spill, are you still in favour of it?

 

[Heretic]

27 minutes ago, inane said:

That's a flawed argument cause it's too simple. Sure, just build more pipelines to get more oil. And then we're stuck depending on more oil as a society and it's that much harder to change down the road.

 

It's like the road building argument. Oh, just expand the highway to alleviate congestion, and then we'll talk about transit. Build the highway. Highway fills up. Oh, look, we need to expand the highway more. It never ends until we come to a point when it's devastatingly expensive to do what we should have done decades before. Again, it's just self serving and short sighted. We go on about jobs and kids, but who are we kidding by dooming them to future debt and making our hard choices for us.

LOL, I just read this one, so let me sarcastically extrapolate on this idea.

 

In inane's world, instead of expanding highways and/or making traffic flow more efficiently and safely, we will instead put a limit on how many hours a month each person is allowed to drive - or maybe even stop new drivers from getting a license as there isn't room for them on the roads.   They will be on a waiting list and won't be able to drive until someone else dies.  Maybe we can put a limit on how long someone is allowed to drive?  Kind of a Logan's Run for driving - say 30 years and that's it, no more.  

 

[The Lock]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

OK so you recognize that there is a risk. If the BC NDPs review shows that there is no way to clean up a dilbit spill, are you still in favour of it?

I don't know about PTG, but if there is to be a review on the pipeline, I would want it to be from someone who's not going to be biased and not have their own political agenda. I mean, if they hired someone to review the pipeline, and that review went against what they wanted to hear, would they really come out and say "Oh, we were wrong..."?

[JM_]

7 minutes ago, The Lock said:

I don't know about PTG, but if there is to be a review on the pipeline, I would want it to be from someone who's not going to be biased and not have their own political agenda. I mean, if they hired someone to review the pipeline, and that review went against what they wanted to hear, would they really come out and say "Oh, we were wrong..."?

agreed, it has to be independent. The only thing I've ever been able to find is the 2013 NRC study, and its not great. Unless you like tar balls with your spot prawns.

[The Lock]

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

agreed, it has to be independent. The only thing I've ever been able to find is the 2013 NRC study, and its not great. Unless you like tar balls with your spot prawns.

You mean that wasn't soya sauce?

[ForsbergTheGreat]

5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

OK so you recognize that there is a risk. If the BC NDPs review shows that there is no way to clean up a dilbit spill, are you still in favour of it?

 

 Too much focusing on the worst possible scenario doesn’t do anybody any good. If we all did that to our everyday lives we’d be living in bubble wrap. 

 

I risked flying in an airplane in December. But I know the chances of the worse possible outcoming happening were so slim that it was worth taking, so I could enjoy the whistler slopes. Chances of the worst case tanker spill in BC is just above 0%

[Green Building]

3 hours ago, Attila Umbrus said:

It's already pretty well known what happens with condensate spills. It's just the companies that drag their feet to get action on the spill right away. The BP spill was a disaster because they did not respond quick enough or accurate enough. There are proper ways to clean up spills. We in the industry have to attend spill training exercises ever year. You learn about proper booming techniques and how to channel the spillage into your containment area so to avoid any other down steam issues. The big thing is properly containing your spill so it does not go past your clean up boundaries. Harder said than done, as in the condensate spill in China, open ocean has a major spread effect, and tankers are not equipped to deal with massive spills, you need proper engagement by emergency management crews to reduce the spreading and impact... Which is what BC was proposing when we were talking about pipelining dilbit crude oil from AB. However Dilbit is a whole different ball of wax as it actually sinks to the bottom instead of floating like condensate. That's what freaked me out about the northern gate way project. And I do work in the industry and still did not like it. If a leak did ever happen, we don't stand much of a chance to clean it up. However, if you process the dilbit via a refinery and ship out the refined product that way you end up with products that are lighter than water again and then therefor "float". Dilbit as it is is heavier than water. Dilbit is mixed with condensate to make it more pumpable through pipelines, if it were not blended it would be so thick and heavy it would not pump well. So yes the condensate blended into the dilbit will float but the rest will sink. Overall I still say no to northern gate way. LNG is a different matter. I'm on board with that. If a leak occurs the LNG is ignitable and will not cause ocean spillage. 

It's not well known what happens with them on the China spill scale, and if it is it hasn't been made public knowledge yet. Feel free to add any inside info you may have on the subject. As for your next point, negligence is exactly why some people are fed up with it. I understand there is a huge market for oil, I myself use it on a daily basis, but that doesn't for a second mean that we can't as a province demand more of Alberta for assuming the risk. The idea that a spill is worse than it should have been because people were dragging there feet staring at the clock or selling off stock is precisely the problem.  

 

I'm also of the mindset that we're getting boned day in and day out over softwood lumber, so why we're selling any unrefined products at all is as stupid as letting Yanks come up and log our land for a fee. We should be refining our own product, at least then it would be somewhat cleaner to ship, but more importantly we'd have more jobs here instead of shipping them wherever the oil goes.

[inane]

56 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I guess then we can consider.    

 

instead of jumping right into university after high school, going out working a ton of hours, saving money so that you can enter school debt free and with a head start is mind blowing you stupid. 

lol what kind of ridiculous strawman is this lol

[inane]

35 minutes ago, Heretic said:

LOL, I just read this one, so let me sarcastically extrapolate on this idea.

 

In inane's world, instead of expanding highways and/or making traffic flow more efficiently and safely, we will instead put a limit on how many hours a month each person is allowed to drive - or maybe even stop new drivers from getting a license as there isn't room for them on the roads.   They will be on a waiting list and won't be able to drive until someone else dies.  Maybe we can put a limit on how long someone is allowed to drive?  Kind of a Logan's Run for driving - say 30 years and that's it, no more.  

 

 

lol at this. so incredibly intentionally obtuse.

[The Lock]

9 minutes ago, inane said:

lol at this. so incredibly intentionally obtuse.

Are you just going to sit there and call names or do you have some content to add with that?

[chon derry]

9 hours ago, RRypien37 said:

This is why I stopped eating seafood a few years ago. The oceans are already so incredibly polluted as it stands, you are pretty much poisoning yourself every time you eat any. 

NO, have you even been  to B.C. ?  the entire west coast of Vancouver island , and the rest of the west coast north of Vancouver island ,all the way up the Alaskan pan handle is still fairly pristine compared to the densely populated east coast . from the northern tip of van isle  to the Alaskan border 54 40 LAT. there might be  20,000 people over 270  miles. the only contamimated fish ,seafood i'm aware  of is the long lived species like red snapper (70  80 yrs) or the large bivalves ,geoducks have lead contaminantes , the problem on the west coast is OVER FISHING , throw in the mismanagement of the fisheries not all  sectors ,but the salmon for instance (dwindiling) and cant compete with a harmful atlantic  salmon farm fish.  So trying to protect whats left in our Ocean IS important,  certain fish specie's are already at critical levels  I don't understand why that's so hard to comprehend. by pipeline ,tanker advocates?   a total unwillingness to acknowledge 'OUR ' resource's or our willingness to fight to protect those resources ,the irony of it all one day there will be no fish, one day there will be no oil.  CAN YOU SAY GREED.?

[inane]

1 minute ago, The Lock said:

Are you just going to sit there and call names or do you have some content to add with that?

It's incredibly obtuse to try to make the argument that because I think x I therefore think y with absolutely no supporting rationale as to why I think y or why y is the only possible alternative that I could be thinking of. It's intentionally obtuse because they know it's an inane argument to make but it easily makes my position look weak by fabricating it to such an extreme position that anyone who reads it would say 'wow what a ridiculous argument'. Cause it is a ridiculous argument and one I would obviously never make. But that's again why he did it.

 

Better?