riffraff Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, Toews said: Actually exactly the opposite is happening. @Jimmy McGill has already addressed the inadequacies of that "spill fund". Seems like its the Albertans that want to gloss over the ill effects of this pipeline because lets be honest it has zero effect on them. I wonder how many albertans will continue to buy houses by the sea in my neighbourhood after a spill........... nope. back in Alberta with their massive trucks, boats and snowmobiles. Edited April 20, 2018 by riffraff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 8 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: Any opinion brought up in a debate not supported by reasoning and logic, yes I dismiss. You can't just state an opinion as fact without bring up how it will benefit society. In this case there have been plenty of reasoning and logic brought up that just gets ignored simply because you don't actually want to listen. For example, I don't know how many times I've had to explain that yes, there is a spill fund in place. No they haven't been refuted, they have been glossed over and ignored. Every time the facts get posted, zero replies come about it and they quickly fall into the thread. Not when gas prices rocked up....Enjoy it. We've been paying significantly more for gas than the rest of the country for at least my entire life time. Kinda used to the gouge actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 9 hours ago, kingofsurrey said: When i lived in Edmonton... ( oiler / eskimo were at there peak.... ) they had signs all over the city.. Edmonton - CITY of CHAMPIONS i wonder if those signs are still up.... LOL Haven't been to Edmonton in a while, but that last time I was through, there was only one left.... ...the one leading South on highway 2. (naturally) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWMc1 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: No he didn’t. You guys pretend like there’s some sort of armegedon scenarios that needs to be prepared for. When history in the last 15 years shows there’s no reason to be. I’ve already debunked that entire article multiple times over and over in this thread. It’s a scary tactic and a poorly written one at that. See heres the thing. Today tanker traffic already goes through that harbor. What’s currently stopping the biggest oil tanker spill in history from happening? Everything everyone is freaking out about possibly happened, could happen today, yet for some reason no one seems worried about it. How come no one is demanding today to see the spill response or how the fund would pay, why is that? Because American money cant stop something already built. They can only try to stop next pipeline to keep more Canadian oil landlocked and them receiving all the benefits. "That’s because the proposed expansion will allow for the equivalent of 890,000 barrels of diluted bitumen per day from Alberta’s oil sands to be loaded onto supertankers for export to international markets, mainly in Asia. This would result in a fourfold increase in tanker traffic through Burrard Inlet to 444 vessels per year. But questions about the role of liability insurance, and who pays for cleaning up an oil spill in a worst case scenario, have been conveniently ignored by Ottawa, Kinder Morgan, regulators and the oil industry. They are in other words a kind of flight recorder waiting to be opened in the event that Trans Mountain crashes in spectacular fashion. The Trans Mountain project, embraced by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, is expected to create 50 permanent jobs in B.C. and make a moderate contribution to the provincial tax base. On the other side of the ledger, an oil spill in Burrard Inlet would put at risk industries, including tourism, real estate and agriculture, that together employ over 200,000 people, according to Vancouver-based CRED (Conversations for Responsible Economic Development), a non-profit research and advocacy group. 5,000 barrels of oil leaked out ofTransCanada’s Keystone pipeline in South Dakota, the latest of several major pipeline spills in recent years in Canada and the U.S. Two in Saskatchewan from pipelines operated by Husky Energy and Tundra Energy Marketing have released a combined total of about 2,600 barrels of oil into the environment. The Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska’s Prince William Sound released 260,000 barrels of oil into the North Pacific in March 1989, contaminating a 2,000 km stretch of gorgeous coastline near Anchorage. The cost of cleanup for Exxon was US$3.5 billion (US$6.3 billion adjusted for inflation). Because the sound is in cold water, like Burrard Inlet, the organisms that break down oil were only partially effective and the spill was never fully cleaned up. In the immediate aftermath, the tourism industry lost over 26,000 jobs and more than US$2.4 billion in revenue. An Alaskan court ordered Exxon to pay a further US$5 billion in punitive damages in 1994. After 14 years of lawsuits and appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Exxon only owed US$507.5 million. By comparison, the supertankers that will be loaded at the Westridge Marine Terminal will each carry about 575,000 barrels of oil—more than double the Exxon Valdez spill. With much higher marine traffic than exists today, 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. The Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill on the Gulf Coast in 2010 cost British Petroleum a total of US$62 billion. BP, whose net worth is about $100 billion, paid the full cost out of pocket. Kinder Morgan has nowhere near the financial resources of BP. In its disclosure of responsibility, Kinder Morgan makes no mention of carrying liability insurance of any kind to cover the cost of a major spill. Kenneth Abraham, a leading insurance scholar and professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, says that since the mid-1980s the insurance industry has been reluctant to insure for property losses caused by pollution, and terrified of insuring against liability for pollution, including oil spills. The result is a permanent mismatch between potential losses by pipeline operators such as Kinder Morgan and TransCanada, and the maximum protection they can obtain from insurance policies. When a Montreal, Maine & Atlantic (MM&A) train loaded with crude oil jumped the tracks in Quebec’s Lac-Mégantic, the fiery explosions that resulted from the crash destroyed a portion of the town and killed 47 people. MM&A’s third-party liability insurance was worth just $25 million, a tiny fraction of the cleanup and rebuilding costs and compensation for victims. The Quebec government has submitted a claim against the rail company for more than $400 million. MM&A has been granted creditor protection and is under court supervision while it deals with claims related to the derailment. Kinder Morgan bears no liability for oil spills originating from a tanker that docks at its oil terminus, but this too should be changed, requiring the pipeline operator to share the liability as long as the tanker is in Canadian waters. This will provide a much needed incentive to ensure these supertankers, some longer than Vancouver’s tallest building, the 62-storey Shangri-La Hotel on West Georgia, are properly maintained and operated. The Exxon Valdez ran aground because its captain was reportedly intoxicated. Without these additional checks and balances, the moral hazard is transferred to taxpayers, who could find themselves on the hook for billions of dollars in the event of a major spill. Kinder Morgan might think twice about expanding Trans Mountain if it knew a spill might wipe it out financially. The primary beneficiaries of the Trans Mountain pipeline are Houston’s Kinder Morgan, Alberta’s slumping oil sector, controlled by foreign multinationals such as Exxon and Shell, and export markets in Asia, primarily China. It does nothing to enhance Canada’s energy security, and very little to boost the Canadian economy. It does, however, seriously imperil B.C., particularly its tourism sector, which employs over 127,000 people and contributes $7.7 billion to GDP. To say nothing of the potential damage to one of the world’s richest and most complex marine ecosystems, and a West Coast lifestyle to which ocean sports such as kayaking and wind surfing are considered sacred. Trudeau has never really explained why he wants Trans Mountain to go ahead, but it suggests he refuses to see the high stakes of his environmental gamble. In view of this, the PM’s preachy environmental advocacy in other areas, such as NAFTA, sounds like politically expedient window dressing to help prop up poll numbers. Trudeau made a big show of signing onto the Paris climate accord with its loose dates, vague emission targets and wonky subsidies to developing countries. Too bad doing the right thing at home for the environment when the stakes are crystal clear has proven to be mission impossible for him and his government." I've taken out a lot of the conjecture. The rest of the article uses actual facts that can be verified, The fact that you think you've debunked verifiable facts shows how delusional you are. If you've been paying attention you would comprehend that our issue is with the increase in flow, the type of product, and the increased risk that it creates. I expect you to just find a new slant and carry on with your delusional viewpoint. What else is new? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 9 hours ago, Toews said: Actually exactly the opposite is happening. @Jimmy McGill has already addressed the inadequacies of that "spill fund". Seems like its the Albertans that want to gloss over the ill effects of this pipeline because lets be honest it has zero effect on them. yah, I did. Actually @Warhippy did the best job on that topic. Its a perfect example too of how folks in AB try to throw the responsibility over the fence on the project, vs. acting like a partner. some posters (who shall remain nameless) like to say BC is overplaying the risks. But they have clearly never been part of a risk analysis. The engineers here will know that even when the probability if harm is low, if the severity of the harm is high, it puts you into a high risk classification and you have to mitigate properly. In some posters worlds, they seem to think you forge ahead without adequate systems because the risk is low but conveniently forget about the harm part. Its bad practice and we've seen over and over again in the world when projects done that way do sometimes irreparable harm. The low fund amount is just one part of the problem. The research on dil bit cleanup is still in its early stages as well. The logistical stuff like multiple tugs is in the plan tho which is good. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightycpc Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 17 hours ago, kingofsurrey said: So then why is the Alberta legacy fund at the same level per capita as it was in 1976 Complete mismanagement has occured in Alberta. No wonder they switched over and elected a NDP government. Maybe finally some proper financial management can happen in Alberta.... I will repeat it....Alberta gov't only brings in enough money from O&G to build new neighborhood infrastructure to house refugees from BC (and build empty LRT systems). The provincial gov't has forfeited huge royalties in favor of employment opportunities for Canadians. There was no mismanagement (or supermanagement) of the Heritage fund. If times are great, the fund will grow, if times are not great, it will be reduced. With Canadians sabotaging themselves, times are not great. So great that only 36% of British Columbians still want to be in bed with the US refiners and Russian/Saudi cartels. lol 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightycpc Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: yah, I did. Actually @Warhippy did the best job on that topic. Its a perfect example too of how folks in AB try to throw the responsibility over the fence on the project, vs. acting like a partner. some posters (who shall remain nameless) like to say BC is overplaying the risks. But they have clearly never been part of a risk analysis. The engineers here will know that even when the probability if harm is low, if the severity of the harm is high, it puts you into a high risk classification and you have to mitigate properly. In some posters worlds, they seem to think you forge ahead without adequate systems because the risk is low but conveniently forget about the harm part. Its bad practice and we've seen over and over again in the world when projects done that way do sometimes irreparable harm. The low fund amount is just one part of the problem. The research on dil bit cleanup is still in its early stages as well. The logistical stuff like multiple tugs is in the plan tho which is good. World class spill response is not even in question, I don't know why FTG even bothers (but I learned a lot I guess...thanks). Trudeau has emphasized it over and over and over.... Bitumen is easier to clean up than regular oil because it doesn't sink as fast as lighter oil. It is less damaging to fish. There will always be studies going on to improve clean up technology. The great "mysterious bitumen" story is hatched out of San Francisco. Edited April 20, 2018 by mightycpc 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 48 minutes ago, mightycpc said: World class spill response is not even in question, I don't know why FTG even bothers (but I learned a lot I guess...thanks). Trudeau has emphasized it over and over and over.... Bitumen is easier to clean up than regular oil because it doesn't sink as fast as lighter oil. It is less damaging to fish. There will always be studies going on to improve clean up technology. The great "mysterious bitumen" story is hatched out of San Francisco. No it isn't (well something might be but I can't care less about US propaganda). It comes from our own National Research Council 2013 report, and the current work being done by a single researcher in Devon. I posted a link to all the current research a few pages above. So what our own NRC researchers found was under many freshwater conditions the dil bit will float. In a small tank (1200 gal I believe) they simulated up to 3 weeks floating in fresh water. But, the 2013 report also showed there is a danger when silt is present for sinking, which is found along a lot of the BC coast. They haven't tested salt water/silt conditions yet, at least they haven't published any results to that effect yet. So to me its clear, lets fund a much bigger tank (say a joint project between the BCIT marine campus and SAIT e.g., lots of good folks there) and simulate those silt conditions, and make the tank big enough to do mock clean up exercises. This kind of thing should have been initiated back in 2006, if that had been done so much of the opposition to this thing would be mitigated. IMO if they can simulate actual coastal seawater-silt conditions and do mock clean ups then i think a lot of us here would feel better about it, but make no mistake, that would also be a disaster in the area effected that might take years to recover from. No credible researcher says it won't have a major impact. But with the segmented double hulls, multiple tugs, etc. that should be a small area. There's over a decade of mistrust on pipelines that has to be overcome, and without credible research I don't see how we'll ever get past it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightycpc Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: No it isn't (well something might be but I can't care less about US propaganda). It comes from our own National Research Council 2013 report, and the current work being done by a single researcher in Devon. I posted a link to all the current research a few pages above. So what our own NRC researchers found was under many freshwater conditions the dil bit will float. In a small tank (1200 gal I believe) they simulated up to 3 weeks floating in fresh water. But, the 2013 report also showed there is a danger when silt is present for sinking, which is found along a lot of the BC coast. They haven't tested salt water/silt conditions yet, at least they haven't published any results to that effect yet. So to me its clear, lets fund a much bigger tank (say a joint project between the BCIT marine campus and SAIT e.g., lots of good folks there) and simulate those silt conditions, and make the tank big enough to do mock clean up exercises. This kind of thing should have been initiated back in 2006, if that had been done so much of the opposition to this thing would be mitigated. IMO if they can simulate actual coastal seawater-silt conditions and do mock clean ups then i think a lot of us here would feel better about it, but make no mistake, that would also be a disaster in the area effected that might take years to recover from. No credible researcher says it won't have a major impact. But with the segmented double hulls, multiple tugs, etc. that should be a small area. There's over a decade of mistrust on pipelines that has to be overcome, and without credible research I don't see how we'll ever get past it. Too bad you ruined your post with that last statement. The silt issue is what caused the Kalamazoo cleanup to be tougher than expected. The river was flooding and heavily silted...nothing like west coast sea water. But yes, of course,fine with the BCIT tanks. More research is always good. All this goes without saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 15 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: No it isn't (well something might be but I can't care less about US propaganda). It comes from our own National Research Council 2013 report, and the current work being done by a single researcher in Devon. I posted a link to all the current research a few pages above. So what our own NRC researchers found was under many freshwater conditions the dil bit will float. In a small tank (1200 gal I believe) they simulated up to 3 weeks floating in fresh water. But, the 2013 report also showed there is a danger when silt is present for sinking, which is found along a lot of the BC coast. They haven't tested salt water/silt conditions yet, at least they haven't published any results to that effect yet. So to me its clear, lets fund a much bigger tank (say a joint project between the BCIT marine campus and SAIT e.g., lots of good folks there) and simulate those silt conditions, and make the tank big enough to do mock clean up exercises. This kind of thing should have been initiated back in 2006, if that had been done so much of the opposition to this thing would be mitigated. IMO if they can simulate actual coastal seawater-silt conditions and do mock clean ups then i think a lot of us here would feel better about it, but make no mistake, that would also be a disaster in the area effected that might take years to recover from. No credible researcher says it won't have a major impact. But with the segmented double hulls, multiple tugs, etc. that should be a small area. There's over a decade of mistrust on pipelines that has to be overcome, and without credible research I don't see how we'll ever get past it. What's the difference between an Oil spill polluting the waters, or (us) burning fossil fuels and polluting the atmosphere to continue with our VERY comfortable lifestyles? We (human beings of the Industrialized world) are killing the planet in both circumstances, are we not? To me there is no difference. We either change our lives to exist without fossil fuels, or we continue along the same path and build more pipelines. The end result will be the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 1 hour ago, RWMc1 said: I've taken out a lot of the conjecture. The rest of the article uses actual facts that can be verified, The fact that you think you've debunked verifiable facts shows how delusional you are. If you've been paying attention you would comprehend that our issue is with the increase in flow, the type of product, and the increased risk that it creates. I expect you to just find a new slant and carry on with your delusional viewpoint. What else is new? No, the rest of the article uses scare tactics. Why bring up biggest pipeline spill, why bring up the biggest offshore drilling spill, Like really what is your concern, that these tankers are somehow going to cause a major drilling spill outside Vancouver? Or are these tankers going to somehow cause a pipeline to leak in the ocean? Seriously, why bring do they bring up the BP oil spill where 4.9 million barrels of oil spilled, you do realized these tankers can only carry a maximum of 800,000 barrels…. are you that gullible? This is about oil tankers so bringing up the biggest non tanker spills in history doesn’t use proper context. Finally everyone brings up Valdez, a spill that happened 30 years ago, standards have changed immensely, the 1989 spill a single haul tanker, the captain was drunk, the radar was broken so coast guard couldn’t track them, and ice made them decide to go outside the set path. All a scenario that CAN’T happen today, Today they use double haul tankers, today they will have escort tugs, today we don’t have to worry about the same ice conditions. So why again, is something that happened 30 years ago with different safety standards get brought up all the time? Fear. There’s a reason why the biggest tanker spill in the last 15 years only cost $330 million to clean up, nothing close to that big scare numbers the article talked about. Why didn’t the article mention that? Or how come the article didn’t mention that tanker spills in 1989-1994 were extremely common, over 1 spill “over 700 tonnes” per month. In the last 10 year we average 1 per year, and the 99% of those happened outside of NA. in fact the only major tanker spill that has happened in the last 30 years in NA, is the one that everyone is infatuated on, Valdez. Tanker spills are a rarity today despite the fact that tanker traffic has gone up substantially. If you can’t see how biased or the hidden agenda in that article I can’t help you, you will see what you want to see I guess. But with the amount of people that post it, is sure shows that the Americans are getting there’s money’s worth with their scare tactics. But again I’ve already posted all this all before and it just gets lost in the noise, why because people have already made up their minds, they don’t want actual facts, they only want to hear things that support their argument, even if those things have no correlation. It’s a smear article designed to create fear, I could write one about airplane safety, in attempt to get people to never fly again but instead of bringing up relevant facts and numbers I’ll just talk about the scariest events that’s happened in the last 50 years, while ignoring all the progression made. To answer my own question, why don’t people freak out and bring up the same concerns about current tanker shipments going through the same harbor TODAY.. It’s because odds of a spill increase, which sure more ships = more odds. The question is that people forget to ask themselves is, HOW MUCH does it actually increase? You all seem ok with very little chance of a spill happening today, but you don’t seem to understand that adding a few more ships per day really doesn’t affect the scale, in fact the odds are next to zero and as safety standard continue to increase those odds shrink more and more. Talk about delusional. Keep Pretending like the apocolpse will be the result of a few extra tankers a day. Good grief Charlie Brown. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Attila Umbrus Posted April 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 20, 2018 Okay i'm going to wade into this spill topic a bit more, since i'm an industry worker and have had past experience in this. There is a spill fund that all oil/gas companies put a percentage of their earnings each year into, as mandated by the regulatory authority. The spills I have witnessed in the past never were paid for by the fund we speak of. As it exists for emergency situations like a company going bankrupt and not being able to pay or afford the clean up. But as an active company that creates a spill they have to use their own funds for the clean up. One example: I worked for a company for over 10 years (will not name the company), we hard a large spill in northern alberta due to a pipeline breach in a swampy low lands area. The company immediatly took action and filed a report with the AB regulatory agency. We then enacted our spill response progam and started cleaning things up and repairing the damage done from the spill. Fast forward 5 YEARS LATER, the company is still cleaning up the spill, and sending in continual soil sample tests to ensure the clean up is being done properly. It has cost them several million dollars, but they want to do the right thing and clean it up. One because they have to as there are industry watch dogs that ensure these things take place, and Two: because it just looks bad if you do a half assed job as a company. This is just one company, but in all my years in the industry we have never turned a blind eye away from an environmental disaster. I have several other stories such as the one above. Spills in BC and AB, all are cleaned up, soil is sampled, and the government agencies give the yes or no to whether it has been cleaned up properly. If it does not pass you continue the clean up. With all this being said, I have no experience in tanker spillage in the ocean, but have knowledge on inland water shed spills...I hope I shed a bit of light as to the clean up process that is involved when an incident does happen. It does not get shoved under the rug, it is dealt with, and is kept in check. There are spills that have been cleaned up extremely well, and others that were not. But to ensure a proper clean up has occured, testing in the spill area will be conducted several years after the spill has been cleaned up to ensure no other contaminents have leached out of the soil causing more issues. If leaching does occur, you guessed it, the company goes back to work and starts cleaning things up. All this is paid for by the company who created the spill. Additionally I have seen tanker truck spills on the highway as well, now they don't spill as much as a pipeline or a tanker but they are spills none the less and they are also cleaned up by the company responsible as well... How this works is that the company who put the load of fluid on the truck to be shipped out is responsible for the fluid until it exchanges hands at the reciept point, that being wherever the tank truck unloads its fluids off to. The company that takes the custody transfer of the fluid is now responsible for the product. As you can see product is transported via pipe, rail, or truck but it is all accounted for with companies who "own custody" of the fluid are responsible for anything that happens to it IE: if spills, fires, gas leaks, damage to environment occur they are responsible for. Everything and anything that happens during an incident has someone responsible for the clean up and remediation of the affected area. So now we fast forward to tankers transporting fluid, I have no experience in this, but as you can see from my above explaination there should be a similar set up in place where say, Trans Mountain (Kinder Morgan) is responsible for any spillage until the ship has crossed a certain thresh hold/area, where then the custody is tranferred over to XYZ company over in asia who is buying the product from Kinder Morgan. I wish I could say for sure this is what happens, but as I do not work in that part of the industry I cannot say. To end my post...It's not the wild west anymore, this is an industry that for all intensive purposes is trying to do the right thing. Sure there are bad apples, but to paint every company with the same brush is not fair. There are policies and programs in place to do the best we can to protect our environment. Also one more parting note. All companies are required to attend a yearly spill response and clean up training program, certification of completion of program is achieved, and goes on record. This is a mandatory program that all companies have to attend, no ifs ands or buts. 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Not sure if this has been posted yet, but the "Free the Beer" court case in Quebec could have a bearing on this dispute between Alberta and BC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/how-free-the-beer-ruling-could-impact-the-b-c-alberta-pipeline-war-1.4624756 Quote The Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in one man's battle to bring cheap Quebec beer across the border to his New Brunswick home could end up having implications in the pipeline war between Alberta and B.C. In a unanimous decision, Canada's highest court rejected the "Free the Beer" case as it's become known, upholding the right of a province to impose provincial trade barriers in certain situations. But part of the judgment reiterated what the Constitution already states: that provinces cannot impose trade restrictions with the sole intent of punishing other provinces. That's where the fight over the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion comes into it, especially in relation to Alberta's attempts to thwart opposition to the project by banning B.C. wines and restricting gas exports. The bolded part is the key. According to this ruling, Notley's threats of banning BC imports, or cutting off supply could be viewed as unconstitutional, should it ever make it to court. Perhaps a different tack is in order? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 2 hours ago, mightycpc said: Too bad you ruined your post with that last statement. The silt issue is what caused the Kalamazoo cleanup to be tougher than expected. The river was flooding and heavily silted...nothing like west coast sea water. But yes, of course,fine with the BCIT tanks. More research is always good. All this goes without saying. nope, if you read the 2013 NRC report silt off the coast of BC is also an issue. We simply need the proper tests and I'm sure you'd agree if thats all positive that moves things forward in an important way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 2 hours ago, Alflives said: What's the difference between an Oil spill polluting the waters, or (us) burning fossil fuels and polluting the atmosphere to continue with our VERY comfortable lifestyles? We (human beings of the Industrialized world) are killing the planet in both circumstances, are we not? To me there is no difference. We either change our lives to exist without fossil fuels, or we continue along the same path and build more pipelines. The end result will be the same. I suppose the difference is one circumstance is easier to ignore, at least for now? And we still get to eat spot prawns. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightycpc Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: nope, if you read the 2013 NRC report silt off the coast of BC is also an issue. We simply need the proper tests and I'm sure you'd agree if thats all positive that moves things forward in an important way. Sure. As long as they're done in the next few weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 28 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: I suppose the difference is one circumstance is easier to ignore, at least for now? And we still get to eat spot prawns. We (human beings) are divided into three groups. Those who have (us). Those who almost have, and want to have what we have. And those who have no idea what's beyond their meager existence. We (us) who have want to keep what we have, and share as little as possible with those who want what we have, so we can keep our way of life the easiest as possible. We are going to pump oil, and transport around the globe to feed our desires. We are not going to give up what we have without a serious fight. (That's not human.) Be thankful you were born where you were, and when you were. Enjoy being at the top, and live the life exploitation of 90% of the world's population brings. The other choice is to join them in squalor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 1 hour ago, mightycpc said: Sure. As long as they're done in the next few weeks. I wonder if Harper can be brought in to help? No, it has to be done correctly even if it delays the project. This was a massive blunder by Harper not to put more resources into research. I suppose there was the risk that he wouldn't get the answer he wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 54 minutes ago, Alflives said: We (human beings) are divided into three groups. Those who have (us). Those who almost have, and want to have what we have. And those who have no idea what's beyond their meager existence. We (us) who have want to keep what we have, and share as little as possible with those who want what we have, so we can keep our way of life the easiest as possible. We are going to pump oil, and transport around the globe to feed our desires. We are not going to give up what we have without a serious fight. (That's not human.) Be thankful you were born where you were, and when you were. Enjoy being at the top, and live the life exploitation of 90% of the world's population brings. The other choice is to join them in squalor. I'm a big believer in tech Alf. If we can figure out how to collect carbon at coal burning power plants and get more electric cars on the road we can all have what we want, even the have-nots wanting to have stuff can get there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnarcore Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: I wonder if Harper can be brought in to help? No, it has to be done correctly even if it delays the project. This was a massive blunder by Harper not to put more resources into research. I suppose there was the risk that he wouldn't get the answer he wanted. Which is why he stifled the scientific community at every turn. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts