Kinder Morgan Pipeline Talk

[canuckistani]

On 1/18/2019 at 8:23 PM, Warhippy said:

Ummm....what?

 

Increase traffic in ANY capacity in any form on any mode of road/highway or transit route and you increase the risk of an accident.  That's literally inarguable.  Lacking scientific basis?  Hardly, it's simple math

 

Practicality mate. Tanker traffic is literally like buying a lottery ticket. There are 300 people playing the lottery. Chances of winning are negligible. You made the number go to 900. Yay. Negligible x3 = still negligible. Its simple math,really.

 

[canuckistani]

On 1/18/2019 at 6:22 PM, chon derry said:

theres an inference in this statement that hints of a lack of confidence in the"safey " and or movement of oil/heavy oil , shouldn't we have more confidence in all that were being force feed about tanker traffic and oil spills or mitagation of oil spills?????

Nothing to do with safety, everything to do with breaking pristine ground when none needs to be broken. Mankind = keep to its own mess as much as possible. Mess does not just equate spillage, it also includes slabs of concrete we plop down to build supporting structures in the middle of nature.

[canuckistani]

On 1/18/2019 at 6:36 PM, chon derry said:

actually Dixon entrance Hecate strait , queen charlotte sound IS THE 3RD WORST BODY OF WATER ON THE PLANET.

Pft. 

There is no such thing as 'worst body of water on the planet' unless you are literally talking about the Drake Passage. 

Look up climate and weather conditions - the Russian side of the Pacific is colder, with the Sakhalin region being the mixing zone of hot and cold, creating fog. Foggier, colder, stormier side fo the pacific with also island chain strewn around that *must* be crossed. Yep, no problems so far. With lower safety standard than Canada. But we have 'risk'. Pfft. 

 

[Mackcanuck]

Quote

 are you an environmentalist that cares about reducing green house gasses or is that all a take a back seat in return for personal gain.  

 Are you a non-environmentalist that doesn't care about reducing green house gases or threats to the Salish sea in return for personal gain? 

 

Canapux would eliminate the need for Super tankers to get the Alberta dilbit to overseas markets, I'd say that is a good thing for everyone.

Edited January 20, 2019 by Mackcanuck

[ForsbergTheGreat]

2 hours ago, Alflives said:

Is there a way to pump these “oil pucks” through pipelines?  

Unfortunately no.

 

If the biggest concern is about the water ways. What you could do is set up and invest on building the pellet processing facilities at or near the harbors prior to the oil getting on the tankers.  This would solve the risk tankers spills on the west cost.

 

This issue again is the cost of investment and cost of transformation. Not only is there costs on our side, there’s costs on the buyers side as they’d also need to build the infrastructure to handle and transform back the pellets into useful oil. Which makes it less appealing to purchase.  Guess it depends on where the demand continues to go and how cheap other markets around the world are selling their product for. 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 hour ago, Mackcanuck said:

 Are you a non-environmentalist that doesn't care about reducing green house gases or threats to the Salish sea in return for personal gain? 

 

Canapux would eliminate the need for Super tankers to get the Alberta dilbit to overseas markets, I'd say that is a good thing for everyone.

No I’m a Canadian that supports Canadian industries and supports pumping money back into Canadian homes. I’m a Canadian that takes great pride in the length this country has already went into reducing C02 emissions within the oil industry and how we set the bar for the rest of the world.  The fact that I’m pro pipeline supports that.

 

I’m not against rail pucks. I just find it ironic how people are all for this yet don’t seem to care that this would be a big step back on reducing emissions.  I’ve been lucky enough to have worked in the oil industry and I have also have been involved with shipment by rail (with grains) for a good majority of my life. I can see the flaws with shipping by rail in the current market, so I think its fair for myself to express my concerns over the issue that most wouldn’t have the insight to. 

 

I liked the proposed ocean protection plan that would have greatly reduce risks on B.C. and not just improve saftey of oil traffic over the water but all traffic. I considered that 1.5 billion investment a big win. 

 

 

[Mackcanuck]

I agree with much of this also ^^

I'm not sure I agree about that "this would be a big step back on reducing emissions", but, whatever floats your Super Tanker. 

Edited January 20, 2019 by Mackcanuck

[johngould21]

Any updates on the fire at the Kinder Morgan facility in Burnaby last night? It took close to 3 dozen firemen to douse the flames at a large storage facility at the foot of Burnaby Mountain.

[Warhippy]

3 hours ago, canuckistani said:

Practicality mate. Tanker traffic is literally like buying a lottery ticket. There are 300 people playing the lottery. Chances of winning are negligible. You made the number go to 900. Yay. Negligible x3 = still negligible. Its simple math,really.

 

Again.  Inarguable.  When you plan to sextuple the tanker traffic you also increase the odds of an accident

[RUPERTKBD]

I gotta say, FTG's idea of a facility to covert the Dilbit into pucks at the coast is the best solution I've seen so far. I think a pipeline is definitely a safer and greener way to transport the product over land.

 

I think we still need a comprehensive plan for clean up, (and monies set aside for same) but in the event of a spill, I'd much rather we be faced with the prospect of cleaning up pucks as opposed to raw dilbit.

[canuckistani]

55 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Again.  Inarguable.  When you plan to sextuple the tanker traffic you also increase the odds of an accident

yep. Six times 1 outta 20 million is still insignificant. Your argument is as practically assinine as saying the burns bog is in actual danger now, compared to 1990s, due to quadrupling of the vancouver air traffic in that period. It isn't. 4 times a infinitesimally small number is still irrelevant to the practical reality. 

[Gurn]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I liked the proposed ocean protection plan that would have greatly reduce risks on B.C. and not just improve saftey of oil traffic over the water but all traffic. I considered that 1.5 billion investment a big win. 

^ Lot of talk, from the government about this, as yet no visible action.

[chon derry]

 

12 hours ago, canuckistani said:

Pft. 

There is no such thing as 'worst body of water on the planet' unless you are literally talking about the Drake Passage. 

Look up climate and weather conditions - the Russian side of the Pacific is colder, with the Sakhalin region being the mixing zone of hot and cold, creating fog. Foggier, colder, stormier side fo the pacific with also island chain strewn around that *must* be crossed. Yep, no problems so far. With lower safety standard than Canada. But we have 'risk'. Pfft. 

 

aye aye capt hazelwood,   thats it? only 1 dangerous  body of water globally? "literally"    it only stands to reason if 1 dangerous body of water exists there must be subsequent body's of water equal or slightly less dangerous in succession of varying degree's of danger , of which the  Dixon entrance ,Hecate straits, queen charlotte sound is no exception,  and has a unique feature in its shallow depth (65ft)continuous from banks island to the east coast of haida gwaii,  ground/storm swell has seen wave height and trough depth produce 80 foot waves or bigger ,combined with 200 km/per hr winds, (#12 on the beaufort scale). the actual sea floor has been known to be exposed and ships ,fishing boats have been known to bottom out (see lee wang zin 1979 ship broke in half?) theres also a convergence of northernly  out flows with southeastern winds , from the mainland to the outter reachs of haida Gwaii.    the tanker ban from cape scott to the A/B line 54:40 wasn't put into place for just ecological reasons solely, but is known for its predictable violent weather (fall, winter, early spring) the area is temperate , so cold temps would not be a factor in ships freeze up (decks wheelhouse ,super structures masts etc) thereby making them top heavy , thats not an issue. weather in the Hecate straits are 1 thing , WEATHER ON THE WEST COAST of haida Gwaii are worse!!!!! oh and by the way the west coast of haida gwaii is on KM'S tanker route (see north pacific great circle route).  you admitted to have lived in BC  for 20 years , you have also claimed to be a hi tech radar expert , So how is it you know so little about the province's coast line that  you live in , given your supposed back ground?   and yet still be so geographically challenged? YOU  are no more an expert falling on the pro tanker side than anyone else opposed to it, , in fact your lack of local knowledge doesnt lend you any credence at all!                                                           .https://www.wavepointconsulting.ca/canadian-coast-guard-gets-line-pacific-coast-marine-traffic/                                                                                                               in the link     The American tug that responded was luckily in rupert loading an Alaskan bound rail barge , hi liting Canadas true lack of responce capabilitys.

Edited January 21, 2019 by chon derry

[Ryan Strome]

10 hours ago, Mackcanuck said:

I agree with much of this also ^^

I'm not sure I agree about that "this would be a big step back on reducing emissions", but, whatever floats your Super Tanker. 

Rail? Emissions?

[canuckistani]

3 hours ago, chon derry said:

 

aye aye capt hazelwood,   thats it? only 1 dangerous  body of water globally? "literally"    it only stands to reason if 1 dangerous body of water exists there must be subsequent body's of water equal or slightly less dangerous in succession of varying degree's of danger , of which the  Dixon entrance ,Hecate straits, queen charlotte sound is no exception,  and has a unique feature in its shallow depth (65ft)continuous from banks island to the east coast of haida gwaii,  ground/storm swell has seen wave height and trough depth produce 80 foot waves or bigger ,combined with 200 km/per hr winds, (#12 on the beaufort scale). the actual sea floor has been known to be exposed and ships ,fishing boats have been known to bottom out (see lee wang zin 1979 ship broke in half?) theres also a convergence of northernly  out flows with southeastern winds , from the mainland to the outter reachs of haida Gwaii.    the tanker ban from cape scott to the A/B line 54:40 wasn't put into place for just ecological reasons solely, but is known for its predictable violent weather (fall, winter, early spring) the area is temperate , so cold temps would not be a factor in ships freeze up (decks wheelhouse ,super structures masts etc) thereby making them top heavy , thats not an issue. weather in the Hecate straits are 1 thing , WEATHER ON THE WEST COAST of haida Gwaii are worse!!!!! oh and by the way the west coast of haida gwaii is on KM'S tanker route (see north pacific great circle route).  you admitted to have lived in BC  for 20 years , you have also claimed to be a hi tech radar expert , So how is it you know so little about the province's coast line that  you live in , given your supposed back ground?   and yet still be so geographically challenged? YOU  are no more an expert falling on the pro tanker side than anyone else opposed to it, , in fact your lack of local knowledge doesnt lend you any credence at all!                                                           .https://www.wavepointconsulting.ca/canadian-coast-guard-gets-line-pacific-coast-marine-traffic/                                                                                                               in the link     The American tug that responded was luckily in rupert loading an Alaskan bound rail barge , hi liting Canadas true lack of responce capabilitys.

Again.

Sea of Okhotsk. Google it. Read about it.

Colder than BC-Alaskan coastline. Stormier than BC-Alaska coast-line. Lined with the Kuril Islands streching from Kamchatka peninsula to Hokkaido. Has tanker traffic from Sakhalin terminal for 20 years nearly. Incidents ? Zero. Lower safety standards than Canada, yet no incidents. 
If they can do it, we can do it too.

Real ACTUAL risk = negligible. 

The end.

 

[chon derry]

1 minute ago, canuckistani said:

Again.

Sea of Okhotsk. Google it. Read about it.

Colder than BC-Alaskan coastline. Stormier than BC-Alaska coast-line. Lined with the Kuril Islands streching from Kamchatka peninsula to Hokkaido. Has tanker traffic from Sakhalin terminal for 20 years nearly. Incidents ? Zero. Lower safety standards than Canada, yet no incidents. 
If they can do it, we can do it too.

Real ACTUAL risk = negligible. 

The end.

 

I know as much about the sea of Okhotsk as you do about the BC  coastline , if any googling is needed I suggest YOU GOOGLE  the BC coast line since you do seem fairly ignorant of real LOCAL FACTS!

[canuckistani]

Just now, chon derry said:

I know as much about the sea of Okhotsk as you do about the BC  coastline , if any googling is needed I suggest YOU GOOGLE  the BC coast line since you do seem fairly ignorant of real LOCAL FACTS!

Lol. Temperature data, average number of stormy days per year, etc. are readily available info and the other side of the Pacific is worse. There is no objective reason for this whole 'tanker disaster' nonsense people keep spouting, especially since our Russian counterparts are doing just fine for TWENTY YEARS in worse conditions with lower safety standards.

 

[chon derry]

6 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Lol. Temperature data, average number of stormy days per year, etc. are readily available info and the other side of the Pacific is worse. There is no objective reason for this whole 'tanker disaster' nonsense people keep spouting, especially since our Russian counterparts are doing just fine for TWENTY YEARS in worse conditions with lower safety standards.

 

YOU REALLY DONT KNOW ANTHING ABOUT BC'S COAST OR ITS WEATHER AND ITS BLATANTLY OBVIOUS

Days	Place	Inches	Milli­metres
205	Hartley Bay	184.0	4673
169	Tahsis	169.5	4305
207	Port Renfrew	138.0	3505
225	Port Alice	134.9	3427
206	Ucluelet	131.9	3351
208	Tofino	128.8	3271
229	Prince Rupert	120.5	3060

.

[canuckistani]

Just now, chon derry said:

YOU REALLY DONT KNOW ANTHING ABOUT BC'S COAST OR ITS WEATHER AND ITS BLATANTLY OBVIOUS

Days	Place	Inches	Milli­metres
205	Hartley Bay	184.0	4673
169	Tahsis	169.5	4305
207	Port Renfrew	138.0	3505
225	Port Alice	134.9	3427
206	Ucluelet	131.9	3351
208	Tofino	128.8	3271
229	Prince Rupert	120.5	3060

.

Do you understand the meaning of the term ' comparative analysis' ?!?

Sea of Okhotsk is worse. It has oil terminal. It passes through island chain. No incidents for 20 years with lower safety standards. Can't run away from those facts, bud.

 

[chon derry]

3 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Do you understand the meaning of the term ' comparative analysis' ?!?

Sea of Okhotsk is worse. It has oil terminal. It passes through island chain. No incidents for 20 years with lower safety standards. Can't run away from those facts, bud.

 

I gave you a comparative and your retort was the drake passage? and now its the sea of Okhotsk ?nice deflections .but I guess thats all you have since you know nothing about the risks associated in our back yard , ya thats right nimbism, and your lack of knowledge of our back yard.