Kinder Morgan Pipeline Talk

[RUPERTKBD]

12 hours ago, The Lock said:

I'm genuinely curious. Have you lived in the lower mainland your entire life? Have you had any jobs to do with forestry or any resource company to know what exactly goes on? It just strikes me that there are a lot of "city environmentalists" who hear about things and react to that, but never truly know what's true and what's not.

 

I'm not saying the oil companies don't have a bad track record. They do, but there are a lot of environmentalists who pretty much know nothing about what they are even against it seems. Not saying you are one of those people, but just curious as to why you side the way you do.

Sadly this is true....

 

...there are a lot of people who hear "oil" or "LNG" and are automatically against the proposal, without even bothering to educate themselves on it.

 

We see it up here a lot. There is a big difference between LNG and oil, but to a lot of so-called environmentalists, they're two sides of the same coin.

[Maketherightmove]

On 1/24/2019 at 4:23 PM, kingofsurrey said:

You should go move to China......  if you don't think our environment is worth protecting.......

A pipeline is the best alternative for moving oil & NG. So unless you're proposing Canada completely pull out of the resource industry, you're talking complete nonsense.  

[The Lock]

2 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

Concern for our planets long term viability due to climate change really should not be impacted by anyones postal code.

I am curious though......  do you enjoy outdoor activities and have you ever been anywhere outside Prince George ? 

I've been to most of BC and I do enjoy outdoor activities. I also enjoy seeing people thrive and not lose their jobs because of some environmentalists who think they know it all from some pamphlet handed to them at their doorstep.

 

You want to be concerned for our planet? Eliminate the demand for oil. Otherwise no pipeline here doesn't change anything in terms of the entire planet. The environmentalists against the pipeline are mere people saying "Not in my backyard." They care about BC, but not about the world. It's the same selfishness that you see with the corporations, just in a different form and masqueraded by the notion of "I'm an environmentalist".

 

Don't get me wrong, I like this province too, but if we truly care for the environment, why are we all driving cars, buying plastic items, and using electricity from dams that have flooded large expanses of land? We have much bigger issues to solve than just one pipeline. Yet, environmentalists just focus on the small things that hurt Canada economically.

 

Anyway, I'll end my rant here. Give me a real reason to be against the pipeline that doesn't just move the problem to another part of the world and I'll be for that. Until then, I can't be an environmentalist.

[canuckistani]

2 hours ago, The Lock said:

I've been to most of BC and I do enjoy outdoor activities. I also enjoy seeing people thrive and not lose their jobs because of some environmentalists who think they know it all from some pamphlet handed to them at their doorstep.

 

You want to be concerned for our planet? Eliminate the demand for oil. Otherwise no pipeline here doesn't change anything in terms of the entire planet. The environmentalists against the pipeline are mere people saying "Not in my backyard." They care about BC, but not about the world. It's the same selfishness that you see with the corporations, just in a different form and masqueraded by the notion of "I'm an environmentalist".

 

Don't get me wrong, I like this province too, but if we truly care for the environment, why are we all driving cars, buying plastic items, and using electricity from dams that have flooded large expanses of land? We have much bigger issues to solve than just one pipeline. Yet, environmentalists just focus on the small things that hurt Canada economically.

 

Anyway, I'll end my rant here. Give me a real reason to be against the pipeline that doesn't just move the problem to another part of the world and I'll be for that. Until then, I can't be an environmentalist.

Anti-pipeline protesters like @kingofsurrey don't really care for BC either. If they did, they'd not be blocking something that has extremely low spill rate (pipelines and oil tankers) over cruise ships,who dump ballast water all over the place and contaminate our 'pristine coastline'. They are just knowing or unknowing tools of the tourism and foreign real estate industry, who see the pipeline as a threat for competition for their jobs and their goal of turning BC into a billionaire's retirement paradise.

 

[Butters7]

1 hour ago, canuckistani said:

Anti-pipeline protesters like @kingofsurrey don't really care for BC either. If they did, they'd not be blocking something that has extremely low spill rate (pipelines and oil tankers) over cruise ships,who dump ballast water all over the place and contaminate our 'pristine coastline'. They are just knowing or unknowing tools of the tourism and foreign real estate industry, who see the pipeline as a threat for competition for their jobs and their goal of turning BC into a billionaire's retirement paradise.

 

Don’t forget that one of BCs largest natural resource export is coal, to burn.

[kingofsurrey]

Dirty Bitumen is a dying / dead industry.

 

Luckily  / thankfully most of it will end up being left in the earth......   thus the pipeline expansion will never be needed / completed. 

 

To those workers that are profiting in the short term .....  hopefully they can be hired in more sustainable greener industry. 

Retraining will be critical and  oil industry workers should probably be looking at that option sooner than later. 

[Ryan Strome]

11 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

Dirty Bitumen is a dying / dead industry.

 

Luckily  / thankfully most of it will end up being left in the earth......   thus the pipeline expansion will never be needed / completed. 

 

To those workers that are profiting in the short term .....  hopefully they can be hired in more sustainable greener industry. 

Retraining will be critical and  oil industry workers should probably be looking at that option sooner than later. 

It's so hard to believe you completed high school.

[JM_]

15 hours ago, Butters7 said:

Don’t forget that one of BCs largest natural resource export is coal, to burn.

Metallurgical coal is the big export. 

[Gurn]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/pipeline-work-destroyed-salmon-habitat-expert/ar-BBSNijh?ocid=spartandhp

"

VANCOUVER - Work on a Trans Mountain pipeline crossing in a British Columbia stream has destroyed salmon habitat, raising concerns about the Crown corporation's ability to build infrastructure through waterways if the expansion project proceeds, a scientist says.

Mike Pearson says the "amateur hour" work on the Stewart Creek crossing in Chilliwack will reduce food sources for coho and chum salmon and limit their ability to hide from predators. The fish are part of the diet of endangered southern resident killer whales.

"There was no consideration given whatsoever to the habitat, which is just not acceptable," said Pearson, a biologist with 30 years' experience, in an interview.

Trans Mountain Corp. filed documents with the National Energy Board showing its plans to cover exposed pipe in the Fraser Valley creek. It wrote that it would place concrete mats in the channel, extending about eight metres upstream and nine metres downstream of the exposed line, and cover it with small stones.

Pearson said the work was completed in August to September of last year. He visited the site in December and took photos that he says show most of the stones have been swept away by currents, leaving the concrete blocks exposed.

"The work has degraded habitat in several ways," he wrote in an assessment filed with the energy board by intervener Yarrow Ecovillage.

The smooth, hard concrete provides no hiding places for salmon, supports very few of the aquatic invertebrates they feed on, inhibits plant growth and prevents fish from burying their eggs, the document says.

Pearson believes it's not an isolated incident. An assessment he did of a pipeline creek crossing on Sumas Mountain in 2015 for Pipe Up Network, an anti-pipeline group, concluded the site was physically unstable and reconstructed with materials inappropriate to restoring habitat.

A stream-keeper has also raised concerns about excavation at Trans Mountain's terminal in Burnaby. John Preissl has filed several complaints with the energy board alleging the work has caused sediment to fall into two salmon-bearing creeks.

Federal and provincial officials inspected the terminal in April and found improperly installed sediment and erosion control measures. A follow-up energy board report concluded Trans Mountain had fixed the problems by the end of November.

Trans Mountain said in a statement that the BC Oil and Gas Commission approved its Stewart Creek work and found no issues in site inspections during and after construction.

It said a third-party engineer designed the plan to protect the exposed line and conducted a study to ensure it would not impede fish passage. Environmental plans were created and work was monitored full-time by a qualified environmental professional, it said.

As for Pearson's 2015 criticism of the Sumas Mountain crossing, Trans Mountain said an independent environmental consultant completed an assessment and made a management plan. The work was monitored by an environmental professional and the oil and gas commission found no issues.

It also said "extensive" sediment control measures and mitigation efforts are in place at its Burnaby terminal.

The corporation added that field crews investigated all potential watercourse crossings for its expansion project even before it applied to the energy board for approval.

"The information gleaned from this fieldwork allows us to avoid or minimize impact to fish and fish habitat during pipeline construction," it said, adding environmental inspectors will monitor construction.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government has purchased the pipeline and expansion project for $4.5 billion.

The expansion would triple the capacity of the existing line that runs from the Edmonton area to Burnaby. The energy board completed its first review in 2016 and recommended the government approve the project with 157 conditions.

In its report, the board wrote the watercourse crossing plans "would effectively reduce the extent of effects on fish and fish habitat."

Ten conditions relate to fish, including that the company must file details on the presence of fish and fish habitat with the board before starting construction on watercourse crossings.

Most of the conditions are "a plan to make a plan," argued Eugene Kung, a lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law.

"They don't have any actual measurable effect on the outcome."

The Federal Court of Appeal quashed the project's approval in August in part due to the board's failure to consider marine shipping impacts. The government ordered the board to conduct a new review looking at this issue and produce a report by Feb. 22.

Scientists and environmentalists say the new review, which is limited to 12 nautical miles off B.C.'s coast, is neglecting the streams and rivers that support salmon.

Board spokesman James Stevenson said it will consider all evidence on the record relevant to assessing impacts of project-related marine shipping, including but not limited to impacts on southern resident killer whales.

"Some parties have filed evidence regarding (southern resident) prey, including salmon," he said.

The board rejected Pearson's evidence because Yarrow Ecovillage filed it nine days after a December deadline, but the board noted the evidence "may have some relevance as it pertains to salmon, which is a food source of the (southern residents)."

Chinook salmon comprise roughly 80 per cent of southern resident orca diet in the summer, but chum, coho and steelhead trout make up about 14 to 18 per cent, and little is known of their winter diet, said Pearson in his filing with the energy board.

Paul Spong, founder of Orca Lab research station on Vancouver Island, said chum are the whales' second choice after chinook, adding that starvation is the biggest threat to their survival.

"Anything that interferes with salmon using river systems is detrimental to the orcas."

[Ryan Strome]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Metallurgical coal is the big export. 

Coal is the #1 export and it's not all Metallurgical coal. 

 

But it's alright for BC to contribute greatly to global warming because well it's not a pipeline, which you know is environmentally friendly. But hey US money right?

[Toews]

2 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

Coal is the #1 export and it's not all Metallurgical coal. 

 

But it's alright for BC to contribute greatly to global warming because well it's not a pipeline, which you know is environmentally friendly. But hey US money right?

Global warming is an eventuality as this point. Too many dumb&^@#s out there who think it's a Chinese hoax or a way for liburalz scientists to get more funding. We had a great run but its over. Maybe we can still protect our coasts from a massive spill so that at least the orcas can survive us. 

[canuckistani]

27 minutes ago, Toews said:

Global warming is an eventuality as this point. Too many dumb&^@#s out there who think it's a Chinese hoax or a way for liburalz scientists to get more funding. We had a great run but its over. Maybe we can still protect our coasts from a massive spill so that at least the orcas can survive us. 

The risk of a massive spill are nearly negligible. Its about as valid as saying we should stop flying out of YVR and use Abbottsford airport instead, because a plane may one day crash into the Burns Bog.

 

[MikeyBoy44]

5 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

The risk of a massive spill are nearly negligible. Its about as valid as saying we should stop flying out of YVR and use Abbottsford airport instead, because a plane may one day crash into the Burns Bog.

 

Maybe we should just stop getting out of bed because we may one day bang our head.

[JM_]

3 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

Coal is the #1 export and it's not all Metallurgical coal. 

 

But it's alright for BC to contribute greatly to global warming because well it's not a pipeline, which you know is environmentally friendly. But hey US money right?

you still need steel to build windmills my friend. 

[kingofsurrey]

2 hours ago, canuckistani said:

The risk of a massive spill are nearly negligible. Its about as valid as saying we should stop flying out of YVR and use Abbottsford airport instead, because a plane may one day crash into the Burns Bog.

 

  A plane crash in Burns bog  ( as much as a disaster as it would be ) would not pose the same economic risk to our province as a sinking Dilbit oil spill in Vancouver harbour......

Your comparison is a fail. 

[Toews]

2 hours ago, canuckistani said:

The risk of a massive spill are nearly negligible. Its about as valid as saying we should stop flying out of YVR and use Abbottsford airport instead, because a plane may one day crash into the Burns Bog.

 

Maybe but precautions must be taken even if it is unlikely. You can crunch up the numbers however you see fit but all it takes one error in judgement or lapse in concentration and that plane ends up in Burns Bog. 

[kingofsurrey]

2 hours ago, MikeyBoy44 said:

Maybe we should just stop getting out of bed because we may one day bang our head.

Seems like too late for many people  on this thread that are so pro global warming.......  Seems like they grew up sleeping on the bottom bed of double bunk bed with granite  or concrete  frames ....

[I.Am.Ironman]

28 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Seems like too late for many people  on this thread that are so pro global warming.......  Seems like they grew up sleeping on the bottom bed of double bunk bed with granite  or concrete  frames ....

I don't think it is fair to call people 'pro global warming'. Global warming/climate change is pretty undeniable but I don't think people who are pro pipeline are trying to facilitate/accelerate the climate changing. They just want the economic boost for the province and the nation.. which is fair. People have varying opinions on how much humans actually contribute to the climate changing which is an interesting debate which hasn't been settled. I think every reasonable person can agree that the oil industry as a whole, from the producer to the consumer, doesn't do the planet or the rate of climate change any good.

 

All that being said I have changed my tune somewhat after perusing this thread over the last few weeks. There have been some really great points brought up by both sides. The pucks sound like a great idea that appeases both sides but unfortunately the scale just isn't there to make it a feasible option. Then you add in the fact that the receiving country would have to build a plant to turn the bitumen pucks into usable oil - it makes it a tough sell.

 

On the other hand, the pipeline absolutely can not f*@& with any natural habitats of aquatic wildlife, especially the salmon. Situations such as in the article that Gurn posted above can not happen. It only strengthens the argument of the anti-pipeline crowd that the government is incapable of completing the project with minimal environmental impact. The government needs to prove, somehow, that they take environmental safety serious and situations like that show more incompetence and disregard more than anything.

 

I have been sitting on the fence on this issue. I want and recognize the importance of the economic dividends it would pay for the province and the nation. But I also want the environment protected in the process - and so far that hasn't happened. Who is on the hook for a spill? BC in all likelihood, especially given the damage it would cause fishing industries. If there was a comprehensive disaster response framework/protocol/investment detailed to the public I'd bet they would swing a lot of support their way. I mentioned before (a month ago) in this thread that when there was that oil leak in English bay there was zero response from the coast guard. That was a minuscule spill that showed the inability from our current structure to deal with any sort of oil disaster. That needs to change before oil tanker traffic increases at our ports.

 

At the end of the day those who are dubbing people "environmentalists" as if it is a derogatory term are ridiculous as are the others dubbing people "pro climate change". It is exactly like the blue vs red bs going in the states right now, just in a different context. No one is willing to consider the perspective of the other side. All in all I would like to see the pipeline go through but with more investment in the safety of the project. It will be more expensive but as a taxpayer I am ok with that. Implement an additional tax if need be.

[The Lock]

1 hour ago, kingofsurrey said:

Seems like too late for many people  on this thread that are so pro global warming.......  Seems like they grew up sleeping on the bottom bed of double bunk bed with granite  or concrete  frames ....

Actually, these people are well educated and aren't easily swayed by propaganda. Their beds are generally much nicer than you may think.

 

Also, this has nothing to do with "pro global warming". It's not even being mentioned. Actually, a pipeline would create less of an impact on global warming as there would be less carbon emissions from it. But I don't expect you to see that as you clearly aren't here to debate.

[I.Am.Ironman]

6 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Actually, these people are well educated and aren't easily swayed by propaganda. Their beds are generally much nicer than you may think.

 

Also, this has nothing to do with "pro global warming". It's not even being mentioned. Actually, a pipeline would create less of an impact on global warming as there would be less carbon emissions from it. But I don't expect you to see that as you clearly aren't here to debate.

From an emissions stand point cruise ships are the real devil. Engines running full [gas]steam ahead 24/7 to power a casino, restaurant, club, hotel and whatever else is on board.