Wednesday, October 22nd13.3°C
23840
23779

Enbridge pipeline

B.C. topics.

Moderators: oneh2obabe, Triple 6, Jo, ferri

Enbridge pipeline

Postby maple leaf » Nov 11th, 2012, 3:30 pm

Looks like BC hydro rate payers will be subsidizing Enbridge if this pipe line goes through.That is ,your hydro bill will be going up even more.

Snip;
Dr. Josette Wier’s request to subpoena Mr. Doug Little, Vice-president of BC Hydro to answer questions regarding the supply of electricity to the project, was turned down by the Joint Review Panel (JRP) last week.
Snip;
One of the tasks of the JRP is to assess whether the Enbridge pipeline proposal is in the national interest. As such, Enbridge was asked to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. However, in that analysis, there is no mention of the cost to British Columbians for the supply of electricity to the proposed pipeline. In response to Ms. Wier’s request for this consideration, the JRP responded, “Electricity pricing and the construction and operation of power lines would be subject to provincial assessment processes and regulation and therefore are beyond the Panel’s mandate.“ Thus it is clear that they refuse to address this significant issue.
Snip;
According to calculations from BC-based independent economists, ratepayers in British Columbia, as well as shareholders and debt guarantors of BC Hydro will be subsidizing the private interests of the Enbridge proposal by at least $50-70 million per year. The calculation of this subsidy is based on the rate currently charged to industrial consumers versus the estimated cost to build new electrical generating facilities, which is about double that rate, and includes the proposed Site C Dam and other independent power projects.

The Joint Review Panel denied the subpoena on October 12, 2012. The decision can be viewed here;

File OF-Fac-Oil-N304-2010-01 01 12 October 2012
Ms. Josette Wier
4259 McCabe Road Smithers, BC V0J 2N7
Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc. (Northern Gateway)
Application for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project (Project)
Notice of Motion no. 12 filed by Ms. Josette Wier to subpoena Mr. Doug Little, Vice President of BC Hydro
Ruling no. 117
Dear Ms. Wier:
By motion dated 24 September 2012, Ms. Josette Wier requested that the Joint Review Panel (Panel) subpoena Mr. Doug Little, Vice President of BC Hydro, to answer her questions regarding the cost to BC Hydro for providing electricity to the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline and how this cost would be recovered by the utility. The focus of the questions would be to determine whether any of those costs would fall on taxpayers or British Columbia ratepayers. If her questioning reveals that increased costs may fall on taxpayers or BC ratepayers, she argues that they should be included in the cost benefit analysis of the Project.
In her Notice of Motion #3 dated 9 January 2012, Ms. Wier asked the Panel to require BC Hydro to provide the same type of information. Specifically she requested that the Panel direct BC Hydro to provide an analysis of the electrical demand and consumption of the Northern Gateway project into order to determine, among other things, if the rates charged by BC Hydro would lead to losses that would need to be recovered from customers through higher rates.
On 23 February 2012, the Panel denied Motion #3 and stated:
Electricity pricing and the construction and operation of power lines would be subject to provincial assessment processes and regulation and therefore are beyond the Panel’s mandate. The Panel is satisfied that Northern Gateway has provided sufficient information regarding the electrical power requirements for the Project for this stage of the application review.
.../2
http://www.terracedaily.ca/show10434a/B ... ERGY_COSTS
User avatar
maple leaf
Übergod
 
Posts: 1411
Likes: 166 posts
Liked in: 113 posts
Joined: Nov 6th, 2011, 11:37 am

Re: Enbridge Pipe line

Postby waynetyea » Nov 13th, 2012, 6:24 pm

dont let them build it... after all bc will have to pay for it and all the maintainance.. ps if you go to where they will be building it all you will see is alberta liscence plate as far as the eye can see.. yup no guys from bc and no guys from bc getting any contracts..... if you are going to let them build it do exactly what quebec would do... only hire people from quebec and the local unions... and only give the contracts to build to quebec companys... then make sure enbridge must pay for 100 % of all the maintainance.. and give bc the same royalty that quebec would charge... not one penny less
waynetyea
 
Posts: 88
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 2 posts
Joined: Feb 16th, 2006, 11:38 am

Re: Enbridge Pipe line

Postby j watson » Nov 14th, 2012, 10:27 am

waynetyea wrote:dont let them build it... after all bc will have to pay for it and all the maintainance.. ps if you go to where they will be building it all you will see is alberta liscence plate as far as the eye can see.. yup no guys from bc and no guys from bc getting any contracts..... if you are going to let them build it do exactly what quebec would do... only hire people from quebec and the local unions... and only give the contracts to build to quebec companys... then make sure enbridge must pay for 100 % of all the maintainance.. and give bc the same royalty that quebec would charge... not one penny less


Waynetea, are you suggesting that BC will have to pay for the pipeline's construction and maintenance? I would suggest that would not be the case and also would point out that the abundance of Alberta plates would be due to the fact that oilfield construction companies are equally abundant in Alberta. Enbridge has a nice refinery in Edmonton as well. As for Quebec and what they would do, it's apples and oranges as I don't think you can compare BC to Quebec in these circumstances. I think the pipeline will be built as it's ultimately a federal decision. The alternative is oil going to the coast, and it will be going there, by train. Do you think that will be safer? Anyway, all IMHO.
j watson
Fledgling
 
Posts: 289
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Aug 6th, 2006, 6:27 am

Re: Enbridge Pipe line

Postby 5VP » Nov 17th, 2012, 9:49 am

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/0 ... -the-gold/

Or...

Nix any pipelines, nationalize the supply for domestic North American use only and Big Oil companies would have to be reverted to non-profit societies.

We get long term low gas prices and no divisive talk about ripping up our lands for foreign benefit.

We could all live here like the Saudis too...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkeRWQlz ... detailpage

Or...

We could give our heads and oil fume infected brains a shake and come to our collective sense before it's too late...
Infinite rider on the big dogma...
5VP
Übergod
 
Posts: 1242
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Dec 26th, 2009, 10:48 am

Re: Enbridge Pipe line

Postby maple leaf » Nov 17th, 2012, 11:13 am

At least someone has some brains in his head.But note they are talking about crude oil not dilbit bitumen.


Halifax MP wants Alberta's oil
by The Canadian Press - Story: 83372
Nov 17, 2012 / 6:45 am


Photo: Contributed
Halifax West MP Geoff Regan
A Liberal MP from Nova Scotia has paid a visit to the oilsands, saying that Alberta may be having struggles in accessing foreign markets but the province's crude is always welcome in the East.

Halifax West MP Geoff Regan says environmental concerns appear to be stalling approval of the Keystone XL pipeline to Texas and the Northern Gateway pipeline which would ship through BC for export to Asian countries.

But Regan says the struggling economies of the Atlantic provinces would be encouraged by the notion of bringing Canadian oil eastward, where residents rely on Middle Eastern imports.

Calgary's TransCanada Corp. (TSX:TRP) is studying the possibility of shipping as many as one million barrels a day of western crude to eastern refineries.

To do so, it would convert part of its natural gas mainline partly to oil service. CEO Russ Girling has called the project both technically and economically feasible.

Company officials have also said they don't expect to see a big environmental pushback because eastern Canadians are keenly aware of how such a plan would positively affect fuel prices where they live.

Regan also says competitive wages in the oilsands could put pressure on companies back east, such as Irving, to offer a bigger paycheque for skilled workers.

"The tradespeople will be saying, `do I want to go home and work for $10 an hour less plus take a haircut on my benefits?' " said Regan.

"I think they're going to have to be competitive. Some people will want to stay home but still, when the opportunities still exist out here I think they're real and that's something that will have to factor in."
User avatar
maple leaf
Übergod
 
Posts: 1411
Likes: 166 posts
Liked in: 113 posts
Joined: Nov 6th, 2011, 11:37 am

Re: Enbridge Pipe line

Postby maple leaf » Jan 1st, 2013, 7:18 pm

Lets fill super tankers full of dilbit and ship it through some of the most rugged treacherous water off BC's coast,through our salmon migration territory,along side the most pristine great bear rain forest,home of the endangered Spirt Bear.Enbridge says nothing to worry about,nothing will happen trust us.
Why have we not heard anything about this in the MSM?





Breakaway Oil Rig, Filled With Fuel, Runs Aground
By HENRY FOUNTAIN
Published: January 1, 2013


An enormous Shell Oil offshore drilling rig ran aground on an island in the Gulf of Alaska on Monday night after it broke free from tow ships in rough seas, officials said.
Enlarge This Image

Petty Officer 1St Class Sara Francis/United States Coast Guard, via Associated Press
The Kulluk is one of two rigs that Shell has used to drill test wells off the North Slope of Alaska as part of the company’s ambitious and expensive effort to open Arctic waters to oil production.




The New York Times
The rig, the Kulluk, which was used for test drilling in the Arctic last summer, is carrying about 139,000 gallons of diesel fuel and 12,000 gallons of lubricating oil and hydraulic fluid, the officials said.

A Coast Guard helicopter flew over the rig after the grounding at 8:48 p.m. and “detected no visible sheen,” said Darci Sinclair, a spokeswoman for a unified command of officials from Shell, Alaskan state agencies and other groups that has been directing the response since the troubles with the rig began last Thursday.

Ms. Sinclair said that more overflights were planned after daybreak on Tuesday, and that the unified command would be monitoring the fuel situation as it planned further actions. “The focus will be around salvage,” she said.

The 266-foot diameter rig ran aground on the east coast of Sitkalidak Island, an uninhabited island that is separated by the Sitkalidak Strait from the far larger Kodiak Island to the west. The nearest town, Old Harbor, is across the strait on Kodiak Island; it has a population of about 200 people.

Ms. Sinclair said the coast where the Kulluk ran aground has a combination of rocky and sandy terrain.

Earlier Monday, a Shell spokesman had said that the rig had been brought under control after towlines were reconnected to two ships during a break in what had been several days of extremely rough seas and high winds.

But late Monday afternoon the line from one of the ships, the Aiviq, became separated. Then several hours later, the other ship, the Alert, was ordered to disconnect its towline, out of concern for the safety of the ship’s nine-person crew. At the time, Ms. Sinclair said, swells were as high as 35 feet and winds were gusting up to 65 miles an hour.

The Kulluk, one of two rigs that Shell used to drill test wells off the North Slope of Alaska as part of the company’s ambitious and expensive effort to open Arctic waters to oil production, was being towed by the Aiviq to a Seattle shipyard for off-season maintenance when the towline initially separated during a storm on Thursday.

The Aiviq then lost power, and other support ships and a Coast Guard cutter were brought in to help with engine repairs and to reconnect towlines to the Kulluk, which does not have its own propulsion system. The 18 workers aboard the rig were evacuated by Coast Guard helicopters on Saturday.

Over the weekend, support crews struggled in 25-foot swells to reconnect towlines, succeeding several times. But each time the lines separated again, leaving the rig in danger of drifting toward land.

The Kulluk, which was built in Japan in 1983 and upgraded over the past six years at a cost of $292 million, is designed for icy conditions in the Arctic. It can drill in up to 400 feet of water and up to 20,000 feet deep. During drilling season it carries a crew of about 140 people, Mr. Smith said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/busin ... ka.html?hp
User avatar
maple leaf
Übergod
 
Posts: 1411
Likes: 166 posts
Liked in: 113 posts
Joined: Nov 6th, 2011, 11:37 am

Re: Enbridge pipeline

Postby maple leaf » Jan 17th, 2013, 11:35 am

Marc’s Enbridge Testimony
January 16th, 2013 · Marc Lee · 1 Comment · Climate change, Energy, Environment, resources & sustainability

Testimony to the Joint Review Panel on the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project

By Marc Lee, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
January 16, 2013

My name is Marc Lee, and I have served as an economist for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives for more than 14 years. Most recently I have been Senior Economist and the Co-Director of the Climate Justice Project, a multi-year SSHRC-funded research project with the University of British Columbia, in collaboration with a large team of academics and community groups.

A year ago, Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver’s open letter stated that the Northern Gateway Pipeline was in the national interest and would substantially boost our GDP and employment. I decided to evaluate those claims, and published my findings in a report for the CCPA, called Enbridge Pipe Dreams and Nightmares: The Economic Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline.

I believe that the government’s job should not be to be cheerleaders for proposals, but should make a ruling in the public interest by carefully weighing both benefits and costs. And on those grounds, I conclude that the Northern Gateway Pipeline fails the public interest test.

Enbridge’s claims about tens of thousands of jobs are grossly overstated, in part because a person-years of employment are not the same as jobs, but mostly because those large numbers are based on flawed input-output modelling that makes many unjustified assumptions. A closer look at Enbridge’s own numbers reveals a different story when it comes to job creation.

While there are clearly large profits that would accrue to the oil and gas industry, and governments will get a share of those profits through taxes and royalties, for ordinary Canadians the harsh reality is that very few jobs would be created by the pipeline.

The vast bulk of work associated with the pipeline would come during the three-year construction phase. In terms of jobs, we can bank on no more than 3,000 jobs per year for three years during the construction phase. Enbridge’s submission states 1,850 per year for three years for building the pipeline. If we assume that the steel and pipe will be manufactured in Canada – something that has not been committed to by Enbridge – that would lead to another 1,000 jobs for three years at most.

Once complete, Enbridge estimates a mere 217 direct jobs in pipeline operations. This is not surprising because the oil and gas industry is one of the most capital-intensive in the world, employing less than 1% of Canadian workers. The share of total income generated by the NGP going to workers, at 18%, is very small by historical standards.

Labour shortages in the construction sector imply that if the pipeline is not built the vast majority of workers would likely be working somewhere else. This is an important point because the modelling invoked by Enbridge essentially assumes that workers would otherwise be unemployed. In addition, the growing tens of thousands of temporary workers in the oil and gas industry suggest that jobs that are created may not even go to Canadians.

Similarly, Enbridge’s claim that Aboriginal employment will fill more than one-third of regional labour requirements is questionable. No commitment to training local residents is specified, so skilled work would only go to workers who already have the qualifications required. Thus, it is likely that Aboriginal workers will be more present in low-skill, low-wage employment, while temporary skilled labour will come from outside the region.

There are other problems in Enbridge’s input-output modelling, some of which seem to be endemic problems with that kind of approach, while others seem to be a mis-application of the modelling. More than two-fifths of Enbridge’s stated employment gains come from induced job creation, the local economic impact of expenditures by workers and governments. These impacts are particularly difficult to estimate and can easily be overstated.

Overall, implausibly large numbers derived from input-output modelling – 63,000 jobs during construction and 1,146 permanent jobs once complete – simply cannot be justified, and should be dismissed as evidence in favour of the pipeline.

Set against the employment fiction created by this modelling exercise, the Enbridge proposal instead passes up value-added employment creation opportunities from upgrading and refining in Canada.

Another missing element from input-output models is the alternative uses of funds. While the pipeline will create temporary and some permanent jobs, the choice for policy makers is not between the NGP and nothing. My report considers alternative investments of $5 billion, particularly in green economic development that would also reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and our reliance on fossil fuels.

Spending $5 billion on public transit, building retrofits, renewable energy and so forth would generate between 3 to 36 times more jobs than investing in the pipeline. A modest carbon tax of $10 a tonne applied nationally would generate $5 billion per year, every year, that could facilitate such investments.

Finally, there are economic costs of moving forward. Having 220 super-tankers up the inlet into Kitimat (in addition to hundreds of LNG tankers also being pursued) will have a negative impact on commercial and traditional fishing in the region even if there are no spills. Eco-tourism, as an alternative industry and employer in the region, would suffer if the pipeline is built.

Pipeline spills are an obvious environmental and economic cost. Given the track record of the industry in general and Enbridge in particular, the question is not if there will be a spill but when and how bad it is. Diluted bitumen is highly corrosive and breaks the pipes it travels through. Enbridge alone has had more than 800 leaks in its pipeline network going back just over a decade. In the US, there have been more than 5,000 pipeline spills going back to 1990. Spills are a just a routine aspect of doing business from a corporate perspective.

In the BC development region of North Coast and Nechako, there were about 5,500 jobs in 2010 in categories that would most likely be affected by an oil spill (such as tourism and fishing) and 12,670 jobs in the Cariboo development region. Even if one in ten of these jobs were affected, the job losses that could result from an oil spill would be larger than new permanent jobs created by the NGP.

Not counted in these statistics is the subsistence economy of fishing and trapping, an important source of non-market food for people in rural areas. The submission by the Gitga’at, whose territory covers the tanker route out of Kitimat, notes that these sources account for about two-fifths of their food supply.

While spills are more of a probabilistic matter, greenhouse emissions are not. The pipeline would facilitate 80-100 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, which is more than BC currently emits in total. Recent estimates of the external costs of carbon emissions are typically in the range of $50-200 per tonne, which implies some $4-20 billion in economic costs from GHG emissions facilitated by the pipeline.

Given that the pipeline is anticipated to create about $4 billion per year in profits to Enbridge shareholders and oil sands producers, these should be considered odious profits that come at the expense of people in other countries and into the future.

Already, the world is seeing growing economic costs resulting from historical GHG emissions. Scientists agree that action is needed to rapidly shift off of fossil fuels, and such a commitment will hopefully be reflected in a new international treaty. Locking in a multi-billion-dollar piece of fossil fuel infrastructure runs the risk of becoming a stranded asset as the world inevitably transitions to clean energy sources.

In sum, there are few economic benefits of the pipeline outside the gains that accrue to shareholders, and at the same time there are massive costs that will be imposed on people and nature from the pipeline. The Northern Gateway Pipeline therefore fails the cost-benefit test and the Joint Review Panel should not approve it.

http://www.policynote.ca/marcs-enbridge-testimony/
User avatar
maple leaf
Übergod
 
Posts: 1411
Likes: 166 posts
Liked in: 113 posts
Joined: Nov 6th, 2011, 11:37 am

Re: Enbridge pipeline

Postby maple leaf » Jan 28th, 2013, 4:50 pm

Kalamazoo River is accessible,compared to where the norther gateway line will go.If they can't even clean up the Kalamazoo ,how the hel* are they going to get out in the middle of our mountain ranges in the middle of nowhere and clean up a spill.

MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2013
Enbridge: bad corporate citizen
From BigCityLib Strikes Back:
Two and a half years after the costliest oil pipeline spill in U.S. history, the company responsible for the disaster is balking at digging up oil that still remains in Michigan's Kalamazoo River.

The cleanup has been long and difficult because the ruptured pipeline was carrying bitumen, a heavy oil from Canada's tar sands region. Bitumen is so thick that it can't flow through pipelines until it's mixed with liquid chemicals to form diluted bitumen, or dilbit. When more than one million gallons of dilbit poured out of the broken pipeline in July 2010, the chemicals evaporated and the bitumen began sinking to the riverbed.
Two and a half years of bad corporate citizenship by Enbridge. They sent their lawyers around to weasel out of paying; they threw sod over-top polluted land and called it clean. And who knows how long the whole misery will go on? It took them three years to give this a quick tape-job.

The question is: why would we expect them to do a better job in the B.C. interior?

johnp3 likes this post.
User avatar
maple leaf
Übergod
 
Posts: 1411
Likes: 166 posts
Liked in: 113 posts
Joined: Nov 6th, 2011, 11:37 am

Re: Enbridge pipeline

Postby samsquench07 » Jan 28th, 2013, 8:34 pm

One this is for sure, and of these goverment scams, nobody benifits except the politicians, because they spend more... and more...and more....

You would think by buidling hydro dames, putting piplelines in etc, that at some point canadians would benifit, and taxes would be come lower. These lands belong to all canadians. Goverments keep raping the land, and canadian taxes keep going up. You do the math.
samsquench07
Board Meister
 
Posts: 414
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 46 posts
Joined: Oct 23rd, 2012, 3:48 pm

Re: Enbridge pipeline

Postby j watson » Jan 28th, 2013, 10:30 pm

samsquench07 wrote:One this is for sure, and of these goverment scams, nobody benifits except the politicians, because they spend more... and more...and more....

You would think by buidling hydro dames, putting piplelines in etc, that at some point canadians would benifit, and taxes would be come lower. These lands belong to all canadians. Goverments keep raping the land, and canadian taxes keep going up. You do the math.


I have no idea what you are talking about but I don't think you do either.
j watson
Fledgling
 
Posts: 289
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Aug 6th, 2006, 6:27 am

Re: Enbridge pipeline

Postby twobits » Jan 29th, 2013, 8:03 am

maple leaf wrote:Kalamazoo River is accessible,compared to where the norther gateway line will go.If they can't even clean up the Kalamazoo ,how the hel* are they going to get out in the middle of our mountain ranges in the middle of nowhere and clean up a spill.



All pipeline ROW's are accessable. They have to be for inspection and repairs if required. Besides, how do you think they get the pipe into the ground? By creating access or by magic?
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

If we could just tax "stupid", there would be no government deficit
twobits
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3816
Likes: 114 posts
Liked in: 564 posts
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 9:44 am

Re: Enbridge pipeline

Postby maple leaf » Jan 29th, 2013, 10:31 am

I see that the Castanet poll asking if you support the Enbridge pipeline or not shows 51.78% say yes and 48.22 say no.Am wondering how much of that is a, it's not really in my back yard so who cares mentality.Also wonder if hypothetically speaking the proposed route was ,say running along the North Thompson river through Kamloops on through the Shuswap,over the famous Adams River and down through Enderby to Okanagan lake by Vernon to a dock were the raw bitumen would be loaded on to tankers and shipped down Okanagan lake to Penticton.Wonder if there would be a different poll numbers.Still probably would not matter to some,but then again think about it.




Support for Enbridge pipeline?
by Castanet Staff - Story: 86582
Jan 28, 2013 / 5:00 pm

About 170 protested outside the Enbridge hearings in Kelowna Monday. By the afternoon the number had dwindled to about 50.

The public was shut out of the meetings on Friday afternoon. The move has infuriated protesters and the NDP.

The last-minute decision to keep the public out of the Enbridge hearings in Kelowna shows once again that the BC Liberal government failed British Columbians when they handed over jurisdiction to Ottawa for a process that will affect the future of our province, says New Democrat environment critic Rob Fleming.

“Since the BC Liberals handed over decision-making power to Ottawa in the 2010 Equivalency Agreement, its been clear that the Enbridge pipeline project has been a federal process without a government to stand up for BC’s interests,” said Fleming.

“It speaks volumes that the Liberals can’t even step in to ensure the public are allowed to observe the proceedings first-hand. This is just one of the reasons a New Democrat government would opt out of the federal process and create a made-in-B.C. environmental review."

Observers were not permitted inside the community hearings in Victoria and Vancouver and were asked to view and listen to the proceedings at a location several kilometres away.

While the hearings in Kelowna were originally intended to be open for public observation, the National Energy Board decided Friday to close them to all but scheduled presenters and their guests.

“I came to Kelowna intent on joining members of this city and surrounding communities in observing the open hearings. Unfortunately, people are being shut out once again,” said Fleming.

“At the previous community hearings, presenters have spoken articulately and passionately on the risks the Enbridge pipeline poses to our environment, jobs and economy,” said Fleming. “People are standing up for BC because their government is not, and they know it’s time for change for the better.”

One of the protesters was also angry with the last minute change.

"The people of Kelowna must also refuse to attend the Holiday Inn. I would suggest that we converge at the Sandman Hotel, the site of the hearing, to protest not only tar sands, pipelines and tankers, but also the unfair Joint Review Panel proceedings," says Dianne Varga.

At the Holiday Inn there was only about 12 people watching the live feed.

Fleming noted that New Democrats have taken a principled stand against the Enbridge pipeline, and have actively sought to participate in the process every step of the way. The environment critic presented to the panel in Vancouver.

“The Liberals, by contrast, have not only avoided taking a position, but are prepared to sell out our pristine land and coastline for the right price.”

Adrian Dix has said that, if elected, BC New Democrats would take practical steps to protect our province, including exercising the right to opt out of the federal government’s review process and setting up a rigorous “made in BC” environmental assessment that ensures the voices of all British Columbians are heard.


User avatar
maple leaf
Übergod
 
Posts: 1411
Likes: 166 posts
Liked in: 113 posts
Joined: Nov 6th, 2011, 11:37 am

Re: Enbridge pipeline

Postby maple leaf » Jan 29th, 2013, 12:39 pm

twobits wrote:
All pipeline ROW's are accessable. They have to be for inspection and repairs if required. Besides, how do you think they get the pipe into the ground? By creating access or by magic?


I suppose you figure the raw bitumen is going to puddle into a convenient little puddle on that road ,so one can drive up to it in a pick-up and scoop it up.It won't flow downhill over cliffs and into gorges and flow down stream ,ever been rafting on a river in the back country.If so you should realize how fast and far it will spread.
User avatar
maple leaf
Übergod
 
Posts: 1411
Likes: 166 posts
Liked in: 113 posts
Joined: Nov 6th, 2011, 11:37 am

Re: Enbridge pipeline

Postby bob vernon » Jan 29th, 2013, 1:05 pm

Within a few years, the forest will begin to grow back along the pipeline route. No pipeline company will even consider keeping the entire line brush-free. Only around junctions and pumping stations will there be any ground access. Helicopters will work fine.... as long as they can find a place to land. And if a spill happens in an inaccessible area? Well, standard operating procedure is to fix the leak and say nothing. The oil will wash away in a few years.
bob vernon
Board Meister
 
Posts: 636
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 84 posts
Joined: Oct 27th, 2008, 10:37 am

Re: Enbridge pipeline

Postby NAB » Jan 29th, 2013, 1:42 pm

But they would not be dealing with oil, they would be dealing with bitumen. Much different beast.

Nab
NAB
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 22985
Likes: 38 posts
Liked in: 206 posts
Joined: Apr 19th, 2006, 1:33 pm

Next

Return to British Columbia

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest