slippers
-
Posts
65 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by slippers
-
-
19 hours ago, kilgore said:
You said there is no evidence of lingering effects after 10 years.
Nice list of excuses though.
What's MY true agenda? I was born and raised in BC. My work, in part, entails travel all over the province visiting old growth and coastlines of BC. And I think most BCers have a special relationship with the land and coast. What's your agenda? Do you even live in BC?
"There has been no destruction of a tourist industry or a fishery from an oil spill anywhere in history."
lol. In history!
Also, never did I use the word "destruction" as in total annihilation that you are inferring.
Here some more links. I'm sure you are keeping up.
Factbox: Gulf oil spill impacts fisheries, wildlife, tourism
BP oil spill cost fishing industry at least $94.7 million in 2010
http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2016/06/bp_spill_cost_gulf_fishing_ind.html
Vancouver oil spill could have far reaching impacts: expert
UBC study: a major spill in Burrard Inlet could cost the Vancouver economy $1.2 billion
http://credbc.ca/ubc-study-assesses-impact-oil-spill-vancouvers-ocean-dependent-activities/
I will admit that I am looking out in a BC first way. Not a Canada first way. Even still, the economic loss (not even a loss, just a delay) of jobs and tax revenue to the country, from an oil sand industry that represents 2% of our GDP, http://factscan.ca/elizabeth-may-oil-sands-two-per-cent-of-gdp/
vs.
the seven times more risk of a devastating bitumen spill off our coast or even in the harbour, and the millions, if not billions of economic loss in fisheries, both commercial and recreational and tourism, for years afterwards. On top of that, no guarantee that it wouldn't happen a second time...or third...
PLUS
The effects on the wildlife, and fragile eco-system of our west coast rainforest and waterways for perhaps decades.
= my 'true' agenda.
Our environment will be safer after the pipeline is installed and tanker traffic increases. Protesters conveniently forget tanker traffic currently cruises in and out of Vancouver without the safety infrastructure KM will bring. Further, the existing pipeline is old and likely to begin having failures. If the environment is the issue there will be an outcry to have the pipeline completed asap. But the environment is not the issue. The issue is preserving new energy markets for our competitors.
Oil sands are only a portion of the oil industry and oil is only a portion of the energy industry. Short sighted water carriers for our competitors and cucks like Harper have mostly destroyed our meal ticket for the future by spurning Chinese investment and not jamming pipelines in a la Dakota access. It's done and that's the last we will hear about it.
Eco systems are robust, not fragile. No coastlines have been ruined by oil tanker traffic. A rare few microscopic spots have experienced temporary issues. BC will not be one of those places because of the ridiculous safeguards proposed.
My agenda is I don't want five people moving into my basement and I prefer a wealthy country to a poor country.
-
3
-
-
41 minutes ago, The Great Canucks said:
Screw Alberta! What a piece of s#!$ province! Alberta can rot in hell for all I care. Notley is a moron that deserves a slap across the face! Kiss my ass, Alberta!
lol...BC has already said this, you're a bit late. Alberta is mildly retaliating.
-
4 hours ago, kilgore said:
In Canada? Why would you limit examples to Canada? Would effects be somehow cleaner with a spill here? The point is to avoid water way spills like we have seen close to us.
What about just up from our northern coast (which should have been ours rightly...damn Brits!), and the Exxon Valdez? 10? How about 25 years later on?
25 years later, Exxon Valdez spill effects linger
The article mentions that a fisherman blames the oil spill 25 years ago for the declining population of silver herring and the bird that eats them. Sounds far fetched considering the population of sea otters, which reside on the top of the local food chain, has been unaffected.
The article mentions drunken sea captains are no longer the last line of defence. Double hull tankers, double tug boats and modern clean up equipment are the new norm.
QuoteHow about the above mentioned Kalamazoo River spill?:
Seven Years Later, Kalamazoo River Oil Spill Cleanup Still Ongoing
The video describes a relatively thorough clean up. There are no issues that anyone is aware of. Part of the discussion was gratefulness that it was bitumen and not another more dangerous type of oil. Again, thanks for the back up.
QuoteThe BP spill in the Gulf:
6 years after Deepwater Horizon oil spill, thousands of people are still sick
This was 20 times the amount of oil in a tanker. People are blaming fumes for various mental and physical issues. No comment.
QuoteA spill in Brazil:
Effects of a Brazilian Oil Spill 10 Years On
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabriel-elizondo/effects-of-a-brazilian-oi_b_638623.html
That is because:
After Oil Spills, Hidden Damage Can Last for Years
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/science/earth/18enviro.html
So maybe you are right, maybe the concern does stem from a "foreign inspired fear". Because, hey, it will never happen here because.......Canada!
About all that revenue:
Brazil. No standards. Did not read. They get business that should be ours.
QuoteRevealed: oil giants pay billions less tax in Canada than abroad
And a good presentation of the decline in corporations tax contributions over the decades by the Toronto Star:
http://projects.thestar.com/canadas-corporations-pay-less-tax-than-you-think/
If we didn't have to pay a $30 dollar a barrel stupid tax to our US masters, that money would be available for taxation. The oil companies provide good wages which are hugely taxed. Those huge income tax windfalls can quickly transformed UI benefits going the other way.
QuoteOkay, but its something right? I agree. Even though you are discounting the even greater economic benefits of tourism and fisheries to our province and the effects that loss would have.
All I'm saying for the umpteenth time, is that all that 'contribution' is still there, will still be there in 5 or 10 years. Canada will not go bankrupt. We will not turn into a third world country without those contributions. We CAN hold out for a little while longer while they figure out a better way, maybe through this CN pellet tech, to move the product. It is just too damn risky with the methods they are using now. Until they do, I'm going to fight tooth and nail for BCs interests.
What risk? There has been no destruction of a tourist industry or a fishery from an oil spill anywhere in history. Are you cancelling your trip to Brazil? What's your true agenda?
-
6 hours ago, kilgore said:
It would be good if you'd source your quotes. I did a search on a sentence and found the original article. In it there is this fellow who is "not angry with the company" that spilled the three million litres of bitumen into his back yard. And thinks that after the EPA ordered them back to clean up better, its just the government "throwing its weight around". Yes, we all know there are those in every crowd. (even on here). There is another paragraph interviewing a citizen who is rightly pissed off about it.
The "fellow", as you refer to him, is the vice president of the environmental society. He was only happy after the spill was cleaned. The "citizen" is a disgruntled lady who had her property bought from her by Enbridge but that wasn't enough, she also wanted them to pay for her business, whatever that was.
QuoteFirst off, the money for the cleanup, is not the main concern. No amount of money can undo all the damage of a major spill in our waterways.
BUT, if you want to go there....
https://twnsacredtrust.ca/concerns/economic-cost-oil-spill/
-
While it is impossible to know exactly how much an oil spill would cost, experts are able to estimate the financial risks by examining historic major spills.
- A 2012 study on the potential economic impact of a tanker spill on ocean-based industries in British Columbia, conducted by the Fisheries Centre of the University of British Columbia, estimates that a medium-sized spill on British Columbia’s north coast would cost the regional economy up to $189 million and require $2.4 billion for cleanup costs. A large-sized spill would cost the regional economy up to $308 million and require $9.4 billion for cleanup. (CredBC)
- According to the Government of British Columbia, limits of liability rules in Canada protect a spiller from spending more than approximately $1.3 billion to clean up an oil spill. In this case, costs for clearing beaches of oily waste, disposing of oily waste, rehabilitating oiled wildlife and coastlines, and salvaging wreckage would likely fall to the provincial and federal governments, local businesses and residents (Technical Analysis: Requirements for British Columbia to Consider Support for Heavy Oil Pipelines, p.11).
another article from just last year:
A B.C. pipeline spill would be inevitable. But who would pay?
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/a-b-c-pipeline-spill-would-be-inevitable-but-who-would-pay/
In the event of an accident, Kinder Morgan has pledged to do no more than comply with federal laws, which stipulate that operators of a major oil pipeline in this country must have a minimum of $1 billion in financial resources available to cover liabilities related to a land spill. If a spill were to occur at the Westridge Marine Terminal, the same law would likely apply.
However, if a tanker were to have a spill in Burrard Inlet or Vancouver Harbour, the vessel owner would be the responsible party. With assistance from the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds and Canada’s Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund, that vessel owner would be expected to muster a maximum of $1.36 billion for a single spill, according to Kinder Morgan.
The Exxon Valdez oil disaster shows how woefully inadequate that sum of money would be. In the event of a major spill, taxpayers would likely be responsible for shouldering most of the cleanup cost, which could easily surpass $10 billion, according to the advocacy group CRED.
Kinder Morgan is a puny beneficiary of the pipeline. Oil sands alone kicked in 23 billion into our economy in 2015. With some effort and better prices that yearly contribution could increase ten fold. Without the energy industry there is no money for first nations, no money for health care, no money for pensions. The cost to Canadians of this foreign inspired fear of pipelines and development is unfathomable. We must be the only fertile ground on earth for this kind of fear mongering. Is there any examples of other countries stopping oil flow out of fear?
Identify an oil spill disaster area in Canada that isn't fine 10 years later (or even fine now). At least there'd be a talking point.
-
2
-
While it is impossible to know exactly how much an oil spill would cost, experts are able to estimate the financial risks by examining historic major spills.
-
6 hours ago, kilgore said:
OMG.
Why not at least research a tiny bit before you run up to the mic to defend the profits of foreign energy corporations over the health of our own Provincial environment. Here's an article that came out of the spill from the Calgary based Enbridge in Kalamazoo River in Michigan in 2010, and this was a river, not the ocean:
If dilbit has the consistency of regular crude, why did it sink during the Marshall spill?
The dilbit that spilled in Marshall was composed of 70 percent bitumen and 30 percent diluents. Although the dilbit initially floated on water after pipeline 6B split open, it soon began separating into its different components.
Most of the diluents evaporated into the atmosphere, leaving behind the heavy bitumen, which sank under water.
According to documents released by the National Transportation Safety Board—a federal agency that is investigating the spill—it took nine days for most of the diluents to evaporate or dissolve into the water.
Can conventional crude oil also sink in water?
Yes, but to a much smaller extent.
Every type of crude oil is made up of hundreds of different chemicals, ranging from light, volatile compounds that easily evaporate to heavy compounds that will sink.
The vast majority of the chemicals found in conventional oil are in the middle of the pack—light enough to float but too heavy to gas off into the atmosphere.
Dilbit has very few of these mid-range compounds: instead, the chemicals tend to be either very light (the diluents) or very heavy (the bitumen).
Because bitumen makes up 50 to 70 percent of the composition of dilbit, at least 50 percent of the compounds in dilbit are likely to sink in water, compared with less than 10 percent for most conventional crude oils.
.................
The Marshall spill is not the largest oil spill in U.S. history, but it is by far the most costly. Using figures from PHMSA's pipeline incident database, Swift calculated that the average cleanup cost of every crude oil spill from the past 10 years was $2,000 per barrel. The Marshall spill has cost upwards of $29,000 per barrel.
"When you have something that isn't the biggest spill we've had, but turns out to be far more damaging and difficult to deal with, that raises the question, what about this spill was different?" Swift said. "And what was different is what spilled."
"In Burrard inlet, many portions are polluted already so it's not like the cleaning would be a problem."
If it's more expensive to clean up bitumen that's the company's problem. Enbridge did it's clean up job well in Kalamazoo. In this case it turned out to be more expensive because the EPA went rogue by demanding the river be re-dredged, even though local officials considered the spill to already mitigated. Most considered the unheard of demands by the EPA to be more damaging than the spill. Sock it to the foreign pipeline company.
Enbridge lived up to its promise
For Dr. Jim Dobbins, a retired family doctor and vice-president of a local conservation society in Marshall, that assessment of the company might be a little harsh. He admits he was sickened and angry as he watched the oil course under the bridge that spans the Kalamazoo just west of town. But when then Enbridge CEO Pat Daniel addressed a community meeting in Marshall soon after the spill, he decided to give the company a chance.
"[Daniel] said, 'We've made a mess and we're going to clean it up,'" recounted Dobbins. He admits to being pleasantly surprised.
1 of 8"I'm not angry at the company," said Dobbins, although he is rankled by the spill.
"But generally, it appears as though they have done what they said they would do. And that is clean up the river."
He also thinks the EPA has gone too far with this latest order to re-dredge the river.
"I'm very concerned about them doing more damage to the river than [they] are good by retrieving that amount of oil that's left," said Dobbins. He thinks it is all about the EPA throwing its weight around rather than worry over the Kalamazoo's ecosystem.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:
Hard times on the way for Oil Patch workers... automation is going to cut jobs for sure...
https://thetyee.ca/National/2018/02/02/Job-Losses-Automated-Vehicles-Worry-Truckers/
Tough choices have to be made when US refineries demand $30 a barrel discounts from their hostage. Imagine, these guys can still make a profit selling for $35 a barrel. Unstoppable.
Conventional producers have a choice so they leave for booming economies where profit is easy.
-
7 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:
BC independence would be my first choice .
Of course we could explore some kind of relationship with Washington State an Oregon as well.
Good choice, but we should also take in California so we can have an uninterrupted pipeline of future dreamers streaming in. Alberta can set up there own thing with the US heartland.
-
-
Eight more rigs leaving Canada today for the USA. The oil economy continues to boom. World Oil consumption breaking records with no end in sight. Canada left standing on the outside, sucked in by moderately intelligent foreign players.
-
13 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:
0 % chance this pipeline expansion happens....
0 % chance Trudeau is wllling to be seen on TV as thoussands of grey haired BC senior citizens are getting handcuffed and arrested........
So happy that at least one province is making a statement about reducing global warming
Would you prefer BC to maintain an affiliation with Ontario east or do you favour BC independence? I assume you wouldn't be in favour BC being a part of an independent Western Canadian energy superpower if the protest ultimately backfires.
-
14 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:
Whoa, whoa easy pal.
Jt said for us to not make money and and leave that in the ground is irresponsible. I agree.
Well, I did say "doing well here", and by "here"......I mean the pipeline issues. lol
-
1
-
-
Just now, Ryan Strome said:
Surprisingly I support JTs approach on this matter.
If Trudeau sticks with Notley, who is also doing well here, disaster can be avoided.
-
1 minute ago, MikeyBoy44 said:
And put me out of a job
You and about a million others.
-
2
-
-
42 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:
Trade wars are never a good thing.
But protecting the earth from global warming has to be our first priority.
The more dirty bitumen that stays in the ground the better......
There will be more than a trade war. The country is finished unless oil flows. Alberta and Saskatchewan will leave. Consequences will not matter.
-
2 hours ago, Warhippy said:
Actually, what's scarier is at ANY point in time US lines could simply say sorry we're at capacity. Our oil would go nowhere. With the Permian basin in Texas now viable again for the first time in decades, it's the closest; easiest oil in North America. Couple that with the shale beds in the North East and really...we're against a wall.
The only positive is that the Gulf coast refineries are tooled up to process heavy oil at the moment, so they have some need for our oil, especially since Venezuelan production is failing. The U.S. has been using it's newly fracked light shale oil for export.
Kinder Morgan Pipeline Talk
in Off-Topic General
Posted · Edited by slippers
Not having a pipeline option costs the Canadian economy an input of about $20 billion a year because we get $29 a barrel instead of $49 (@ WTI $59). Add in another $17 billion for lost production due to BC threats (a million barrels/ day minimum), add in billions of lost capital investment, and then add in the unbelievably huge losses due to our gifting the LNG treasure to the US and Australia and we are likely talking half a trillion dollars of economic activity (with multipliers) stymied because you don't want to see two extra specs a day floating off into the horizon. The OPEC chapter of the Sierra Club should get a medal. Very patriotic of them to concentrate their message north of the border.
Some here have the nerve to complain about lack of money for social safety nets.