Kinder Morgan Pipeline Talk

[Violator]

54 minutes ago, MikeyBoy44 said:

Not only that, but every single one of those was due to pipelines needed fixing/updating or complete disregard for upkeep which I'd expect for us to be on top of 24/7

Stupid part is with this EXPANSION they are building the new one and rehabing the old one they know the structural intergrity of every mm of pipe.

[Ryan Strome]

1 hour ago, CBH1926 said:

People that want to secede, are like folks that think if a group gets lost in the woods, best idea is to split up.

I am suprised to hear people talk about that in Canada, Quebec being the exception of course.

 

Even in Quebec separatism is all but dead these days. The bloc got smashed in the last two elections.

[kingofsurrey]

Looks like people of Vancouver are getting up to speed...

http://vancouversun.com/

 

 

Vancouver International Mountain Film Festival

When:Feb. 9-17

Where: Various venues

Tickets and info: vimff.org

---

About six years ago Zack Embree decided that he needed to lend his voice to the discussion of climate change, so he picked up a camera and went about making his first movie.

The result of that decision is the 75-minute documentary Directly Affected looking at the impact of pipelines on communities across the country

 

His quest for knowledge began in Burnaby with the oil spill of 2007 and Kinder Morgan’s $7.4-billion Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project, and the film has its world premiere here at the Vancouver International Mountain Film Festival.

“When I learned about climate change, I realized it wasn’t an issue we could keep punting off into the future,” said Embree, who moved to Vancouver from Hamilton, Ontario, 10 years ago.

“It was around the same time I learned about the Kinder Morgan pipeline. I made the connection between these two … and I really wanted to answer the question how is it we can continue to expand our reliance on oil for our economy and for the ways we power our lives, and also make meaningful progress when it comes to reducing our carbon omissions and our impact on the climate?”

While Embree sets out facts and poses questions about the future, the heart of this film is a desire to give a voice to the little guy; to stand up and say a corporation’s bottom line should not outweigh the well-being of the environment.

“What it appeared to me was local communities were being bullied by a federal government and an industry that was really hell bent on making sure this project went through,” said Embree, who owns the video production company New Energy Media.

“The grievances that I heard, and the ways in which people’s concerns were being sidelined made me feel like I needed to do something.

 

“When I saw my city, my region, local First Nations, being steamrolled by a project I thought ‘well I can do something. I can use the power of media and storytelling to contribute to this conversation,’ ” added Embree.

Embree, who co-directed the film with Devyn Brugge, said the seriousness of the subject matter made for a very intense filmmaking experience.

 

Z

“It’s been a huge challenge in my life.: not only learning how to make film, but to document and to portray a really complex issue. It’s definitely pushed me to my edge on all fronts,” said Embree.

Produced for around $100,000 (funded by Storyhive grants and crowd funding), the film will be touring B.C. and Ontario in the spring.

“I want people to continue to have this conversation,” said Embree. “We cannot continue with business as usual.”

 

[coastal.view]

18 hours ago, kilgore said:

I realized that I had not thought through the fact that if this tech is developed and used, there will be no need for the pipeline. So i edited my original. 

So perhaps that is a part of the equation. That energy companies have already invested so  much in the pipeline approach; in Alberta construction has already begun. I say too bad so sad.  Unless they can find a way to  move pellets through pipelines, they should be scrapped in favour of secure rail cars that can accommodate this new form of transport.

so you wish to commit to an inefficient and forever polluting model of transportation

because this will help the environment?

if there was an easy solution everyone would have seen it and grasped it already

problem is, a safe pipeline in fact saves transportation and ongoing pollution costs

but the rub is. how do we make the pipeline that safe ?

but a pipeline still is the best model to work with in my view

[Ryan Strome]

10 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

so you wish to commit to an inefficient and forever polluting model of transportation

because this will help the environment?

if there was an easy solution everyone would have seen it and grasped it already

problem is, a safe pipeline in fact saves transportation and ongoing pollution costs

but the rub is. how do we make the pipeline that safe ?

but a pipeline still is the best model to work with in my view

Have we ever agreed on anything before? +1 coastal.

[coastal.view]

1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said:

Have we ever agreed on anything before? +1 coastal.

never

it is a sad day when a long streak finally comes to an end

damn

[Ryan Strome]

2 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

never

it is a sad day when a long streak finally comes to an end

damn

[alt kilgore]

3 hours ago, Violator said:

Why are you using american pipeline failures to back up your arguement?

Why did you cherry pick one small aspect of one of my my overall points thinking that was some brilliant way of dismissing them?

 

The post I responded to was an assumption that surely newer pipeline building technology would be much safer than a 30 year old pipe in there now.  I googled pipeline spills and came up with that link to show that every year there are many pipeline leaks and spills. If you scan the list, I can see 4 or 5 under the management of Kinder Morgan. Do you think they don't use much the same construction methods here as in the US?

 

Here's the link to Canadian spills

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents

 

Here's a couple more fairly recent articles if you need proof that, yes, it also happens in Canada:

4 significant pipeline spills last year, oil and gas group says

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/pipeline-report-performance-review-spills-inspections-1.3301481

 

Oil And Gas Pipeline Incidents In Canada Doubled In A Decade: Report

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10/28/oil-pipeline-incidents-canada_n_4170381.html

 

 

Does that address your concern?

[alt kilgore]

1 hour ago, coastal.view said:

so you wish to commit to an inefficient and forever polluting model of transportation

because this will help the environment?

if there was an easy solution everyone would have seen it and grasped it already

problem is, a safe pipeline in fact saves transportation and ongoing pollution costs

but the rub is. how do we make the pipeline that safe ?

but a pipeline still is the best model to work with in my view

IMO it is not even the risk of pipeline spills that is the main issue. Even though it is considerable. (See the VICE video below) It is the seven fold tanker traffic in our coastal waters....carrying that raw bitumen. And the devastation that would reap that is my main concern. These new pellets float. To me, the added carbon in the atmosphere used to transport them by rail is outweighed by taking the risk out of contamination to the environment of our ocean. And even the land, using this new product, if a rail car had an accident.

 

There is no easy solution, I agree. Then why rush it? The oil and all that tax revenue along with the profits we won't see, will still be there in 10 years. Lets wait for this new technology to develop.  I've even heard once, I can't find a link, of an idea to transport these sealed pellets of bitumen in some form of liquid, so they could still use a pipeline.

 

But lets at least wait until this tech,or something else better, is developed into practical usage. Yes, oil company execs and their shareholders want everything now, and getting this pellet tech up and running enough to be practical may take awhile. But we live here ffs! We have much greater stakes I would think every BCer would agree to that. My job is not to cater to some energy mega corps bottom line.

 

More articles:

 

An Engineer Has Accidentally Discovered a Way to Make Transporting Oil Safer

https://futurism.com/an-engineer-has-accidentally-discovered-a-way-to-make-transporting-oil-safer/

 

While transporting oil via rail is somewhat safer, the process still isn’t foolproof. More crude oil was spilled in American rail incidents in 2013 than in the previous 40 years, and in the last 10 years, there have been 62 crude oil spills from trains.

Gates’ rugged pellets, however, could mitigate these risks.

 

 

Not only could the balls be transported in the thousands of rail cars that were originally built for coal but that now sit idle, because they float, they could also be far more easily removed from water if they did spill into it.

“With this, we can put [oil] in a standard rail car. It can go to any port where a rail car goes, which is an immense number of them, to get product out from North America,” said Gates. “It’s a safe product for transport.”

 

Balls of bitumen: Calgary breakthrough could bypass pipeline problem, researcher says

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/bitumen-balls-pellets-pipelines-rail-train-transport-energy-alberta-technology-1.4277320

 

Oil sands crude pellets touted as cure for industry's transport headaches

https://www.bnn.ca/oil-sands-crude-pellets-touted-as-cure-for-industry-s-transport-headaches-1.848809

[Violator]

2 hours ago, kilgore said:

Why did you cherry pick one small aspect of one of my my overall points thinking that was some brilliant way of dismissing them?

 

The post I responded to was an assumption that surely newer pipeline building technology would be much safer than a 30 year old pipe in there now.  I googled pipeline spills and came up with that link to show that every year there are many pipeline leaks and spills. If you scan the list, I can see 4 or 5 under the management of Kinder Morgan. Do you think they don't use much the same construction methods here as in the US?

 

Here's the link to Canadian spills

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents

 

Here's a couple more fairly recent articles if you need proof that, yes, it also happens in Canada:

4 significant pipeline spills last year, oil and gas group says

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/pipeline-report-performance-review-spills-inspections-1.3301481

 

Oil And Gas Pipeline Incidents In Canada Doubled In A Decade: Report

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10/28/oil-pipeline-incidents-canada_n_4170381.html

 

 

Does that address your concern?

I know they dont use the same constructiin methods 

 

As well as incidents are anything that happens on a pipeline or facility site which includes in a city or outside the city these are the regulations that are required in canada.

 

https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/bts/ctrg/gnnb/rprtnggdlns/index-eng.html#s5_1

 

[alt kilgore]

20 minutes ago, Violator said:

I know they dont use the same constructiin methods 

 

As well as incidents are anything that happens on a pipeline or facility site which includes in a city or outside the city these are the regulations that are required in canada.

 

https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/bts/ctrg/gnnb/rprtnggdlns/index-eng.html#s5_1

 

You know this for a fact?  So what happens at the border for the Keystone pipeline? Does construction suddenly deteriorate? even though its all owned by the same corps?

Is the USA that much behind us in pipeline construction standards?

 

And I also posted a few other links on Canadian spills which you oddly did not address.

 

And the article I linked at the top was addressing "accidents". But even in the last link, showing "incidents" doubled. Is that reassuring to you somehow?

 

 

add to the fact that this is just another cherrypicked red herring. My main concern isn't even a pipeline spill. Its a water spill off our coast. Why do so many BCers side with a few American CEOs and execs and shareholders getting even richer over the health and well being of BCers and their children and the wildlife and land and waterways of our great Province, I'll never understand.

Edited February 3, 2018 by kilgore

[Violator]

Why do so many bcers side with american interests and lobyists that just try to harm our economy in order to line the pockets of american and other interests?

[alt kilgore]

31 minutes ago, Violator said:

Why do so many bcers side with american interests and lobyists that just try to harm our tourism and fishing economy in order to line the pockets of american and other interests?

You missed a couple of words.

You're welcome.

[Ryan Strome]

52 minutes ago, Violator said:

Why do so many bcers side with american interests and lobyists that just try to harm our economy in order to line the pockets of american and other interests?

I have been wondering this for a long time. Opposing getting oil to the ocean only benefits the Americans and leaves them in control of a major resource of ours. Ironically most these people complain about Trump.

Edited February 4, 2018 by Ryan Strome

[JM_]

19 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

I have been wondering this for a long time. Opposing getting oil to the ocean only benefits the Americans and leaves them in control of a major resource of ours. Ironically most these people complain about Trump.

US politicians seem more willing accept things like Deep Water Horizon than we are. And thats a good thing imo. 

 

There's really no excuse to ship dil bit until they can prove they can clean it up.

[Violator]

50 minutes ago, kilgore said:

You missed a couple of words.

You're welcome.

I missed alot of words that i cpuld have said

[ronthecivil]

11 hours ago, Hobble said:

That "solidyfing bitumen into pucks" tech seems pretty revolutionary. So what's the catch? Why is it not being implemented yet on large scale?

What's the point? You have to process it twice more than you would other wise. Heck, bitumen is pretty much a solid in the first place. That why they have to dilute it.

[ronthecivil]

5 hours ago, kilgore said:

IMO it is not even the risk of pipeline spills that is the main issue. Even though it is considerable. (See the VICE video below) It is the seven fold tanker traffic in our coastal waters....carrying that raw bitumen. And the devastation that would reap that is my main concern. These new pellets float. To me, the added carbon in the atmosphere used to transport them by rail is outweighed by taking the risk out of contamination to the environment of our ocean. And even the land, using this new product, if a rail car had an accident.

 

There is no easy solution, I agree. Then why rush it? The oil and all that tax revenue along with the profits we won't see, will still be there in 10 years. Lets wait for this new technology to develop.  I've even heard once, I can't find a link, of an idea to transport these sealed pellets of bitumen in some form of liquid, so they could still use a pipeline.

 

But lets at least wait until this tech,or something else better, is developed into practical usage. Yes, oil company execs and their shareholders want everything now, and getting this pellet tech up and running enough to be practical may take awhile. But we live here ffs! We have much greater stakes I would think every BCer would agree to that. My job is not to cater to some energy mega corps bottom line.

 

More articles:

 

An Engineer Has Accidentally Discovered a Way to Make Transporting Oil Safer

https://futurism.com/an-engineer-has-accidentally-discovered-a-way-to-make-transporting-oil-safer/

 

While transporting oil via rail is somewhat safer, the process still isn’t foolproof. More crude oil was spilled in American rail incidents in 2013 than in the previous 40 years, and in the last 10 years, there have been 62 crude oil spills from trains.

Gates’ rugged pellets, however, could mitigate these risks.

 

 

Not only could the balls be transported in the thousands of rail cars that were originally built for coal but that now sit idle, because they float, they could also be far more easily removed from water if they did spill into it.

“With this, we can put [oil] in a standard rail car. It can go to any port where a rail car goes, which is an immense number of them, to get product out from North America,” said Gates. “It’s a safe product for transport.”

 

Balls of bitumen: Calgary breakthrough could bypass pipeline problem, researcher says

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/bitumen-balls-pellets-pipelines-rail-train-transport-energy-alberta-technology-1.4277320

 

Oil sands crude pellets touted as cure for industry's transport headaches

https://www.bnn.ca/oil-sands-crude-pellets-touted-as-cure-for-industry-s-transport-headaches-1.848809

Ok that's a pretty good reason to make the pucks (or balls, or whatever).

[Ryan Strome]

20 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

US politicians seem more willing accept things like Deep Water Horizon than we are. And thats a good thing imo. 

 

There's really no excuse to ship dil bit until they can prove they can clean it up.

I don't like our resources being only available to Americans thus giving them control over our oil. Certainly you can see my pov.

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

I don't like our resources being only available to Americans thus giving them control over our oil. Certainly you can see my pov.

oh for sure, so lets get the clean up tech done right and get on wth trade. 

 

It may even just be a matter of proper modelling of a spill. Right now the only major study has been conducted in a fake fresh water "lake" in Saskatchewan. The results were positive, the dil bit didn't sink for 2 weeks, but that isn't the same thing as a rough coastal salt water sea, not by a long shot. KM along with independent Canadian scientists (funded by gov't) need to model the coastal spill scenario. If it doesn't sink for a week then that would be huge in terms of settling most people down.