Dilbit spill could hurt salmon

The forum's Skid Road. DO NOT ENTER unless you're ready for a squabble.

Re: Dilbit spill could hurt salmon

Postby flamingfingers » Dec 28th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Perhaps it's not the pipelines as such that are such a great concern (however, it must be acknowledged that pipeline spills DO occur and cause pollution of rivers and streams) but at the terminus of these pipelines, the dilbit must be loaded on huge tankers in the POV and then trek through busy waterways, under several bridges and then power their way though a rather complicated waterway to gain open ocean.

An accident involving a bridge or weather that can influence navigation and cause a spill in the bathtub of the Salish Sea would be devastating not only to Vancouver itself but to Vancouver Island and Seattle, Tacoma, Bellingham, Port Angeles in the USA.

Who would be on the hook monetarily for damages?
Why do people who fancy themselves "fiscal conservatives" not scream at hidden debt accumulated in the past dozen years? Or, do they only object to spending on social programs?

Cactusflower likes this post.
User avatar
flamingfingers
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 20465
Likes: 5943 posts
Liked in: 6331 posts
Joined: Jul 9th, 2005, 8:56 am

Re: Dilbit spill could hurt salmon

Postby LordEd » Dec 28th, 2017, 7:04 pm

Cactusflower wrote:Maybe you should try googling
Not our job to build your argument.

Burden of proof is on you.

Make a statement, post a link, and quote a small relevant portion to support your statement.

3 people like this post.
LordEd
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3724
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 2225 posts
Joined: Apr 3rd, 2008, 9:22 am

Re: Dilbit spill could hurt salmon

Postby alanjh595 » Dec 28th, 2017, 7:05 pm

LordEd wrote:
Cactusflower wrote:Maybe you should try googling
Not our job to build your argument.

Burden of proof is on you.

Make a statement, post a link, and quote a small relevant portion to support your statement.


I concur.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.

The Green Barbarian likes this post.
User avatar
alanjh595
Guru
 
Posts: 6220
Likes: 2273 posts
Liked in: 3411 posts
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 5:18 pm

Re: Dilbit spill could hurt salmon

Postby Cactusflower » Dec 28th, 2017, 11:01 pm

flamingfingers wrote:Perhaps it's not the pipelines as such that are such a great concern (however, it must be acknowledged that pipeline spills DO occur and cause pollution of rivers and streams) but at the terminus of these pipelines, the dilbit must be loaded on huge tankers in the POV and then trek through busy waterways, under several bridges and then power their way though a rather complicated waterway to gain open ocean.

An accident involving a bridge or weather that can influence navigation and cause a spill in the bathtub of the Salish Sea would be devastating not only to Vancouver itself but to Vancouver Island and Seattle, Tacoma, Bellingham, Port Angeles in the USA.

Who would be on the hook monetarily for damages?


See what happens here? Someone like you submits an interesting comment and it gets ignored because they are unable to answer the question you pose at the end.

Well, I'll answer it. We, the taxpayers of B.C. will be on the hook, as usual.
Cactusflower
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3596
Likes: 1717 posts
Liked in: 750 posts
Joined: Aug 27th, 2017, 11:33 pm

Re: Dilbit spill could hurt salmon

Postby LordEd » Dec 29th, 2017, 9:18 am

Failing to respond to an opinion does not make it interesting, nor does a question make it unanswerable.

I think the ship company would bear the responsibility.

In the US that's the case at least. https://www.epa.gov/emergency-response/who-pays
Who Pays
By law, the parties responsible for the use, transportation, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances and oil are liable for costs.
LordEd
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3724
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 2225 posts
Joined: Apr 3rd, 2008, 9:22 am

Re: Dilbit spill could hurt salmon

Postby The Green Barbarian » Dec 29th, 2017, 11:38 am

*removed*
Last edited by ferri on Dec 29th, 2017, 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Baiting
"Socialists sure are a lot dumber today than they were when I was alive" - John Stuart Mill

JT - he's been ready since 2015, to be the puppet of Gerald Butts and the Laurentide Elite.
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 28558
Likes: 12361 posts
Liked in: 16433 posts
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 9:13 am

Re: Dilbit spill could hurt salmon

Postby Cactusflower » Dec 29th, 2017, 11:42 am

LordEd wrote:Failing to respond to an opinion does not make it interesting, nor does a question make it unanswerable.

I think the ship company would bear the responsibility.

In the US that's the case at least. https://www.epa.gov/emergency-response/who-pays
Who Pays
By law, the parties responsible for the use, transportation, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances and oil are liable for costs.


How long did it take for Exxon to pay for that Valdez spill? (If you can't find it on Google, I'll look it up for you and post it later.)
Cactusflower
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3596
Likes: 1717 posts
Liked in: 750 posts
Joined: Aug 27th, 2017, 11:33 pm

Re: Dilbit spill could hurt salmon

Postby LordEd » Dec 29th, 2017, 11:58 am

Looks like they took their time.

However, the governments also got smarter
In response to the spill, the United States Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA)
This act seems to put some very specific liabilities on vessels.

So go more recent
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... settlement
A federal judge in New Orleans has granted final approval to an estimated $20bn settlement, resolving years of litigation over the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

I believe that's in addition to what they spent: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/20 ... /87087056/
BP said Thursday that it expects the pre-tax cost of its 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill on the Gulf Coast to total $61.6 billion.
LordEd
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3724
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 2225 posts
Joined: Apr 3rd, 2008, 9:22 am

Re: Dilbit spill could hurt salmon

Postby Cactusflower » Dec 29th, 2017, 12:19 pm

LordEd wrote:Looks like they took their time.

However, the governments also got smarter
In response to the spill, the United States Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA)
This act seems to put some very specific liabilities on vessels.

So go more recent
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... settlement
A federal judge in New Orleans has granted final approval to an estimated $20bn settlement, resolving years of litigation over the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

I believe that's in addition to what they spent: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/20 ... /87087056/
BP said Thursday that it expects the pre-tax cost of its 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill on the Gulf Coast to total $61.6 billion.


That's good news..........for Americans.

alanjh595 likes this post.
Cactusflower
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3596
Likes: 1717 posts
Liked in: 750 posts
Joined: Aug 27th, 2017, 11:33 pm

Re: Dilbit spill could hurt salmon

Postby LordEd » Dec 29th, 2017, 1:15 pm

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... .html#h-49
http://sopf.gc.ca/en/

Interesting. Looks like there's such a thing as "Ship Source Oil Pollution" fund in the Marine Liability act. If there's any issue in getting payment, the fund covers cleanup and then the fund goes after the polluter to reimburse itself.

Supports my statement that the polluter pays.

The Green Barbarian likes this post.
LordEd
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3724
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 2225 posts
Joined: Apr 3rd, 2008, 9:22 am

Re: Dilbit spill could hurt salmon

Postby The Green Barbarian » Dec 29th, 2017, 1:18 pm

Cactusflower wrote:
How long did it take for Exxon to pay for that Valdez spill? (If you can't find it on Google, I'll look it up for you and post it later.)


LOL - the Exxon Valdez. It happened decades ago *removed* Let's talk about Three Mile Island too while we are at it.
Last edited by ferri on Dec 29th, 2017, 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Baiting
"Socialists sure are a lot dumber today than they were when I was alive" - John Stuart Mill

JT - he's been ready since 2015, to be the puppet of Gerald Butts and the Laurentide Elite.
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 28558
Likes: 12361 posts
Liked in: 16433 posts
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 9:13 am

Re: Dilbit spill could hurt salmon

Postby Cactusflower » Dec 29th, 2017, 2:55 pm

LordEd wrote:http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/M-0.7/page-13.html#h-49
http://sopf.gc.ca/en/

Interesting. Looks like there's such a thing as "Ship Source Oil Pollution" fund in the Marine Liability act. If there's any issue in getting payment, the fund covers cleanup and then the fund goes after the polluter to reimburse itself.

Supports my statement that the polluter pays.


I just read all the incidents related to B.C. and except for the Marathassa that dumped bunker fuel into English Bay and the Nathan E. Stewart that went aground in Hartley Bay, all of these 'ships' were old/abandoned/derelict vessels that sunk at a dock or anchored in a harbour somewhere. They were leaking diesel or gasoline, not dilbit.

This thread isn't even about tankers anyway. It's about dilbit leaks and spills from pipelines. However, if people still want to discuss the tanker issue, that's fine with me. But just remember that in order for there to be a tanker incident, the dilbit first has to go across land to get to an ocean. AB is land-locked, remember? No pipeline, no tankers.
Cactusflower
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3596
Likes: 1717 posts
Liked in: 750 posts
Joined: Aug 27th, 2017, 11:33 pm

Re: Dilbit spill could hurt salmon

Postby alanjh595 » Dec 29th, 2017, 3:00 pm

Cactusflower wrote:I just read all the incidents related to B.C. and except for the Marathassa that dumped bunker fuel into English Bay and the Nathan E. Stewart that went aground in Hartley Bay, all of these 'ships' were old/abandoned/derelict vessels that sunk at a dock or anchored in a harbour somewhere. They were leaking diesel or gasoline, not dilbit.

This thread isn't even about tankers anyway. It's about dilbit leaks and spills from pipelines. However, if people still want to discuss the tanker issue, that's fine with me. But just remember that in order for there to be a tanker incident, the dilbit first has to go across land to get to an ocean. AB is land-locked, remember? No pipeline, no tankers.


Just as it is currently. NO pipeline in place that can be blamed for these "incidents", just rail cars, tanker trucks, and ships/barges. NOTHING to do with pipelines. Please try and stay on topic.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
User avatar
alanjh595
Guru
 
Posts: 6220
Likes: 2273 posts
Liked in: 3411 posts
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 5:18 pm

Re: Dilbit spill could hurt salmon

Postby LordEd » Dec 29th, 2017, 3:03 pm

All was in reply to a comment you stated was 'interesting' with a question you implied nobody wanted to answer.

So I answered with support and then more support when you questioned.

Now you don't like the answer and cry off topic.

Make up your mind.
LordEd
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3724
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 2225 posts
Joined: Apr 3rd, 2008, 9:22 am

Re: Dilbit spill could hurt salmon

Postby Cactusflower » Dec 29th, 2017, 3:16 pm

LordEd wrote:All was in reply to a comment you stated was 'interesting' with a question you implied nobody wanted to answer.

So I answered with support and then more support when you questioned.

Now you don't like the answer and cry off topic.

Make up your mind.


Read my comment again. I said it's fine with me if people want to discuss oil tankers on this thread, but the dilbit first has to get to the ocean in order to get exported. The preferred (and cheapest) method of getting it there is by pipeline, according to the multinational oil corporations. Ergo, no pipelines, no tankers.

Don't even start on rail and truck transport. Big oil already ships as much as possible by those methods. It's the KM expansion they are determined to push through now. Energy East has been shelved, and it looks as though the KeystoneXL is still a non-starter, so what's left?
Cactusflower
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3596
Likes: 1717 posts
Liked in: 750 posts
Joined: Aug 27th, 2017, 11:33 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Bickering Room

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests