Castanet

Posted: **Feb 1st, 2013, 10:42 am**

asas wrote:As to cleanup.....
Having worked in the oil sand projects for the past few years, I will guarantee that at least Stat Oil and Cenovus take cleaning up of any spills very seriously. They have constant monitor patrols to all rigs and will fine you if ANY spills, however small, are located.
Example:
1) While changing motor oil on a rig motor, a 5 gallon pail containing waste oil was partially spilled while being poured into oil recycling tank - Reported and investigation completed. Ice, snow and dirt removed and cleaned.
2) Crane truck grenaded motor on small hill in very, very remote area. Within the hour multiple pieces of earth moving equipment was on site. The site was completely excavated, and fresh road material was built into the road. The original snow, ice and dirt was taken to a waste soil processing site for decontamination.
3) Loader fell onto its side during equipment move. Full response team arrived even though NO SPILL occurred.
So I have to say that at least someone is trying.
Another question does arise however as I read threads like this. Beyond the expert opinions of those who have never been to the "patch", how is society to continue asking the governments to provide services that make their life so pampered if we do not raise monies thru taxation of resources? How would YOU get the oil to market? Do you complain about the price of fuel you buy at the gas station? Do you enjoy the possibility of having fuel shortages based on other counties not liking us or our neighbours?
Our resources are enormous and must be safely harvested for our markets and those of the modern world. Companies have abused our enviroment in the past and a few still do. They must be monitored and taken to task without mercy.
Several new technologies have recently come on line to enure pipeline integrity - FLIR for example. The public is aware and watching, so let us work together to make the progress we all want.
No matter who your political favorites are, nothing is FREE and we all have to EARN our way thru life!
Whew!
Time for more coffee that is from a FAIR company that does not hire homeless children in bare feet while fighting snakes .....

I'm sure companies take spill clean ups seriously.The enbridge pipeline is not going to carry refined oil.It will be transporting dilbit ,a chemically diluted form of raw bitumen.A whole different ball game than oil.You have seen what it takes to clean up a small spill of oil ,now think about cleaning up 6000 barrels of dilbit that has spilled in a remote area of the mountains in BC and is now flowing down hill into a gorge ,and into a river,which will carry it down stream for miles,By the way when dilbit gets into the water it sinks.Now what will it take to clean this up,compared to 1 gallon spilled on an accessible roadway.Companies may have the best intentions and a plan on paper,and that sounds good but in reality it is a different story as history of Enbridge has shown us.Even the Exxon Valdez spill from1989 .Today oil can still be found on the beaches there.Sure they will attempt to take every precaution humans can dream up to prevent a spill,but accidents happen and will happen with this pipeline.And it is not only the pipeline ,there is whole other ball game when ti comes to the transportation down the Douglas Channel .Here is a site with an interactive map that shows you how the spill will move with ocean currants and what will be effected by a spill ,check it out.

Posted: **Feb 1st, 2013, 11:34 am**

I heard on a radio discussion that Enbridge feels that upgrading to synthetic crude prior to shipment isn't feasible.

Very puzzling position, as the first thing refineries do (I think) when they get that dilbit goop is upgrade it(?) so that their regular refinery will handle it. I assume that the low number of refineries that handle dilbit plus the additional cost of upgrading it at the refinery (what do they do with all the particulates???), is why the price for this stuff is so low. So if it has to be upgraded anyway, and if there's only a limited number of buyers for dilbit, why not upgrade it at source. More potential customers = higher prices, better product = higher prices, lower transport cost = more profit, upgrading = good paying Canadian jobs = more taxes for Alberta, longer pipeline life = more profits, etc.

Nowhere do I hear double wall pipeline.

It is possible to this responsibly, but the producers/shippers will have to bear the true cost. While the northern route is just plain dumb, a southern route done responsibly could fly.

Perhaps I'm answering my own question, in that if they had to upgrade it, then there would be enough customers not to need the pipeline at all???

Posted: **Feb 2nd, 2013, 6:53 pm**

The problem isn't upgrading - upgrading is done at the site of extraction. The problem is refining. If you notice in the US, refineries are arranged in nodes - the reason being that the distillants and products of the refining process are used by parasite industries located around the nodes, producing everything from pharmaceuticals to plastics. At current levels of around 1.25 million barrels per day the oil sands won't support a refinery node either in AB or on the BC coast. That will change later when and if production ramps up to 3.5 mil near the end of the decade, or 5 mil in 20 years or so. All of which is almost entirely dependent upon an east-west pipeline infrastructure that allows the oil to reach Asian markets. North-south pipelines aren't going to be much good any more because the US will be energy self-sufficient quite soon - that and the recession are the reasons we're selling oil at a substantial discount right now.

Posted: **Feb 3rd, 2013, 10:34 pm**

gong the pipline and just let poor old bc drill for thier own oil which is in huge quantities everywhere off the coast and then just let us sell it to the highest bidders. after all we have billions of barrels of it we just dont have a goverment with any balls to let us drill for it. like alaska california mexico, uk, origon louisiana south america etc etc. weve got all we need right here. dont let them use our land for their own gain, vote for a party that will let us drill for our own oil... we need the money for this generation not one 300 hundred years from now. take this to heart and i dare you to print this in the papers

Posted: **Feb 4th, 2013, 7:07 am**

ScottSA wrote:The problem isn't upgrading - upgrading is done at the site of extraction. The problem is refining. If you notice in the US, refineries are arranged in nodes - the reason being that the distillants and products of the refining process are used by parasite industries located around the nodes, producing everything from pharmaceuticals to plastics. At current levels of around 1.25 million barrels per day the oil sands won't support a refinery node either in AB or on the BC coast. That will change later when and if production ramps up to 3.5 mil near the end of the decade, or 5 mil in 20 years or so. All of which is almost entirely dependent upon an east-west pipeline infrastructure that allows the oil to reach Asian markets. North-south pipelines aren't going to be much good any more because the US will be energy self-sufficient quite soon - that and the recession are the reasons we're selling oil at a substantial discount right now.

Just to clarify Scott, "upgrading" in this case usually refers to the process of creating synthetic oil from the oil sands bitumen, which can then be delivered to conventional refineries (which cannot handle raw bitumen) via conventional pipeline the same as conventional crude oil. "Some" upgrading facilities exist near the source of the oil sands bitumen I understand, but that is not the issue. The issue is that the NG pipeline as well as the Keystone propose the movement of the bitumen itself without upgrading it at source first. Basic refining IMO IS NOT "the problem".... supporting the transportation of non-upgraded diluted raw bitumen is the problem (conventional refineries wherever cannot handle the product), ...and I think it is very important to this discussion and resulting decisions that everyone understand the difference, instead of continually treating the two products as the same thing and worth the same price.

Nab

Posted: **Feb 4th, 2013, 9:35 am**

QUOTE:
2) Crane truck grenaded motor on small hill in very, very remote area. Within the hour multiple pieces of earth moving equipment was on site. The site was completely excavated, and fresh road material was built into the road. The original snow, ice and dirt was taken to a waste soil processing site for decontamination.

things like this are so so rediculous .we went from no controll to big brother controll its rediculous

The Enbridge pipeleine will be 100% faultfree and will benifit many people.The only reason the frigging injuns dont want it is they want more CASH cause there just plain greedy.There is no danger of the pipeline causing any problems with todyas pipeleine quality and installation

Posted: **Feb 4th, 2013, 11:07 am**

ticat900 wrote:The Enbridge pipeleine will be 100% faultfree and will benifit many people.The only reason the frigging injuns dont want it is they want more CASH cause there just plain greedy.There is no danger of the pipeline causing any problems with todyas pipeleine quality and installation

Are you sure it will be 100 % fault free ? Did you hear this from Enbridge ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enbridge

Using data from Enbridge's own reports, the Polaris Institute calculated that 804 spills occurred on Enbridge pipelines between 1999 and 2010. These spills released approximately 161,475 barrels (25,672.5 m3) of crude oil into the environment.[12]

Are they good at cleaning up after themselves in the event of a spill ?

http://vimeo.com/22067803

Posted: **Feb 4th, 2013, 2:13 pm**

SmokeOnTheWater wrote:
Are you sure it will be 100 % fault free ?

Are you 100% sure there will be a spill on a brand new line built to todays required standards? Do you drive a car? Do you use anything made from plastic? Has yourself or any family member benefitted from resource royalties that paid for schools, roads, hospitals and health care?

Posted: **Feb 4th, 2013, 3:01 pm**

Are you sure it will be 100 % fault free ?

[/quote]Are you 100% sure there will be a spill on a brand new line built to todays required standards? Do you drive a car? Do you use anything made from plastic? Has yourself or any family member benefitted from resource royalties that paid for schools, roads, hospitals and health care?[/quote]

kinda my point also.Iam 100% sure a fault free pipe;line can be built using todays standards and iam sure enbridge will say the same thing

Posted: **Feb 4th, 2013, 6:20 pm**

ticat900 wrote:Are you sure it will be 100 % fault free ?
kinda my point also.Iam 100% sure a fault free pipe;line can be built using todays standards and iam sure enbridge will say the same thing

Nothing is guarantied when there is so many variables. The Titanic was thought unsinkable. Earthquakes were mentioned in earlier posts. Besides once the oil is piped it is then 'Shipped'!!! Is that guarantied too considering there have been so many marine disasters?

Posted: **Feb 4th, 2013, 8:43 pm**

Nothing is guarantied when there is so many variables. The Titanic was thought unsinkable. Earthquakes were mentioned in earlier posts. Besides once the oil is piped it is then 'Shipped'!!! Is that guarantied too considering there have been so many marine disasters?[/quote]

If the titantic was in 2013 it would have the current navigation technologies available and never hit a iceburg to begin with
never mind the ability to build superior ships nowadays verses back then
The shipping thing is another argument.Iam talking pipeline here
I say based on superior technologies and construction methods the pipeline can be built,installed and Run fault free

Posted: **Feb 5th, 2013, 8:49 am**

Mr. Ticat... I am not an indian- I work in the industry (30 years). The bottom line is the oil companies don't care what you think and (believe me) certainly don't care about the environment. They can convince you the sky is yellow if/when they wave their mighty dollar in your face. The bottom line in this industry is get it done at ANY cost. Enbridge has spills frequently, and their history has shown that they are not very good at clean up. These people have a team of "propaganda" specialists who are paid very well to tell you the sky is yellow. We all know that B.C. would like to be just Alberta in finances and "wealth" but at what cost. I wouldn't drink water from any ground source in that province. Most pro pipeliners that blog here almost recite word for word what the "propaganda" specialists are saying. They are doing their job. If the anti pipeliners had as much money as the "OIL", then this would be an entirely different discussion. With all said (and 30 years exp.), this is not good for this province. 99% of this discussion comes from ignorance, not experience.

Posted: **Feb 5th, 2013, 8:54 am**

If the titantic was in 2013 it would have the current navigation technologies available and never hit a iceburg to begin with
never mind the ability to build superior ships nowadays verses back then
The shipping thing is another argument.Iam talking pipeline here
I say based on superior technologies and construction methods the pipeline can be built,installed and Run fault free[/quote]

I used the Titanic as an example of you can't believe everything you hear. "The shipping thing is another argument" ???? So in your mind we can possible build a safe pipeline and so go ahead!!!! What happens after that doesn't matter and and isn't part of this discussion? Why build it if we aren't going to ship it and so in my mind it is a very big part of this arguement!!!

Posted: **Feb 5th, 2013, 9:30 am**

I used the Titanic as an example of you can't believe everything you hear. "The shipping thing is another arguement" ???? So in your mind we can possible build a safe pipeline and so go ahead!!!! What happens after that doesn't matter and and isn't part of this discussion? Why build it if we aren't going to ship it and so in my mind it is a very big part of this arguement!!![/quote]

maybe to you? i was talking about pipeline as that was the topic at hand.I am of the opinion based on todays rules,regulations and construction/designs methods they can build a safe pipeline.
I woul;d vote in favour of the pipeline

Posted: **Feb 5th, 2013, 9:33 am**

*try again without inappropriate racial slurs/Jo*

Castanet

Enbridge pipeline

Re: Enbridge pipeline

Re: Enbridge pipeline

Re: Enbridge pipeline

Re: Enbridge pipeline

Re: Enbridge pipeline

Re: Enbridge pipeline

Re: Enbridge pipeline

Re: Enbridge pipeline

Re: Enbridge pipeline

Re: Enbridge pipeline

Re: Enbridge pipeline

Re: Enbridge pipeline

Re: Enbridge pipeline

Re: Enbridge pipeline

Re: Enbridge pipeline