[Zipperfish]

Enbridge suffers new oil leak, shuts key pipeline, Chicago Tribune.

D'oh!

$1:

The news will not help Enbridge build public trust in its network, which has come under scrutiny following several high-profile incidents, including a spill in Alberta last month and a massive leak in Michigan two years ago.

Just weeks ago, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board delivered a scathing report of Enbridge's handling of the July 2010 rupture of its Line 6B near Marshall, Michigan, which led to more than 20,000 barrels of crude leaking into the Kalamazoo River. U.S. pipeline regulators fined it $3.7 million for the spill, their largest ever penalty.

The incidents have caused furor just as the company seeks approval for its C$6 billion Northern Gateway pipeline to Canada's West Coast from Alberta amid staunch opposition from environmental groups and native communities that warn against oil spills on land and in coastal waters.

[Freakinoldguy]

$1:

Enbridge is treating this situation as a top priority," said Richard Adams, vice president of U.S. Operations at Enbridge. "We are bringing all necessary resources to bear

Ya right.

Maybe their asses should be hung out to dry for failure to exercise due dilligence like it would be for anyone other than a big oil company who is so fucked up that the term oil spill has become the new company motto.

$1:

Corporate Social Responsibilty

At Enbridge we pride ourselves on our commitment to corporate social responsibility and we adhere to a strong set of corporate values.

Interesting. They have a set of corporate social responsibilites posted on their web page but fail to mention anything about environmental social responsibilities, which given their track record is understandable.

[Xort]

So just to be sure I am reading this right, some of you are suggesting that a tanker will try to make the transit in 25m seas with 200km/hr winds?

[Gunnair]

Xort Xort:

So just to be sure I am reading this right, some of you are suggesting that a tanker will try to make the transit in 25m seas with 200km/hr winds?

No, you are not reading it right. You are being rather obtuse, however.

PA9 is referring to dealing with a tanker experiencing issues in Hecate Straight or Dixon Entrance. Once in Douglas Channel, the main concern shifts from weather to mechanical issues in a narrow channel where stopping distance exceeds channel width and channel
depth exceeds cable length.

I get you're having a hard time with this. You should pop up to the north coast sometime, then you'll be less likely to be mocked as you wax foolish in the topic.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Xort Xort:

So just to be sure I am reading this right, some of you are suggesting that a tanker will try to make the transit in 25m seas with 200km/hr winds?

You seriously need to go on Wheel of Fortune and ask Pat if you can buy a clue.

[Xort]

Gunnair Gunnair:

No, you are not reading it right. You are being rather obtuse, however.

PA9 is referring to dealing with a tanker experiencing issues in Hecate Straight or Dixon Entrance. Once in Douglas Channel, the main concern shifts from weather to mechanical issues in a narrow channel where stopping distance exceeds channel width and channel depth exceeds cable length.

Stopping distance? What are they going to need to stop for? A deer jumping out? These are ships not cars. So long as they know where they are stopping should be a planned operation rather than an emergancy reaction. What are they going to hit, that they might want to stop for?

As for the Hecate Strait, it's 140km wide at the open end and 48km at the narrow end, and 240km long. The Dixon Entrance is 80 deep and about 40km wide.

I'm not seeing the problem.

$1:

I get you're having a hard time with this. You should pop up to the north coast sometime, then you'll be less likely to be mocked as you wax foolish in the topic.

To what end?

You are not making much of a case why shipping should not use the suggested route.

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Xort Xort:

So just to be sure I am reading this right, some of you are suggesting that a tanker will try to make the transit in 25m seas with 200km/hr winds?

You seriously need to go on Wheel of Fortune and ask Pat if you can buy a clue.

Is that a yes or a no? If it's a yes, that is retarded. If it was a no, then why bring it up? Other than pointless emotional arguments about how dangerous it sounds?

[Gunnair]

Gunnair Gunnair:

No, you are not reading it right. You are being rather obtuse, however.

PA9 is referring to dealing with a tanker experiencing issues in Hecate Straight or Dixon Entrance. Once in Douglas Channel, the main concern shifts from weather to mechanical issues in a narrow channel where stopping distance exceeds channel width and channel depth exceeds cable length.

Xort Xort:

Stopping distance? What are they going to need to stop for? A deer jumping out? These are ships not cars. So long as they know where they are stopping should be a planned operation rather than an emergancy reaction. What are they going to hit, that they might want to stop for?

I'm not even sure a crayon sketch would benefit you. Mostly because you get it, you're just trolling a bit. That's okay, I'll play for a while.

Of course, you might not get it. I'll dig out the ol' Etch-a-sketch and see if I can draw you a clue, son.

$1:

As for the Hecate Strait, it's 140km wide at the open end and 48km at the narrow end, and 240km long. The Dixon Entrance is 80 deep and about 40km wide.

I'm not seeing the problem.

I'm willing to bet a neurosurgeon would show you a picture of TBI and you'd have a similar reaction.

You're out of league, son. You'd best sit back down at the kid's table.

$1:

I get you're having a hard time with this. You should pop up to the north coast sometime, then you'll be less likely to be mocked as you wax foolish in the topic.

Xort Xort:

To what end?

Well, mostly so you stop embarrassing yourself. Mind, I know you're trolling so it's more likely a loneliness/confidence issue.

That's okay too.

Xort Xort:

You are not making much of a case why shipping should not use the suggested route.

Well I have, but honestly, I just can't be overly bothered to lead you to a clue.

[Zipperfish]

$1:

I'm not seeing the problem.

Captain Hazelwood's famous last words.

[Xort]

Gunnair Gunnair:

I'm not even sure a crayon sketch would benefit you. Mostly because you get it, you're just trolling a bit. That's okay, I'll play for a while.

Of course, you might not get it. I'll dig out the ol' Etch-a-sketch and see if I can draw you a clue, son.

So in other words you don't actual have a point to go with your warnings about the stopping distance. As such are now trying to dodge the issue.

$1:

I'm willing to bet a neurosurgeon would show you a picture of TBI and you'd have a similar reaction.
You're out of league, son. You'd best sit back down at the kid's table.

It seems to me like you are the one that is out of their depth, you haven't given any reason for your objections.

$1:

Well, mostly so you stop embarrassing yourself. Mind, I know you're trolling so it's more likely a loneliness/confidence issue.

If you can't answer a simple question like why is this dangerous, maybe the one that is trolling is you.

Also why would be being physicaly present on the north coast change anything, you haven't said what I would be expected to learn that can only be learned by being in a physical location.

$1:

Well I have, but honestly, I just can't be overly bothered to lead you to a clue.

AKA I never expect someone to call my bullshit, and now I'm trying to back out of having to say anything because I know I don't have a leg to stand on.
~
It's so obvious I don't have to explain myself isn't an arugment. So without any sort of counter argument made, I'm going to class your objection as NIMBYism and butthurt over Alberta having a valuable export resource.

[herbie]

I'm not gonna call names, Xort. Go on Google Earth and start at Kitimat. Follow the routes out open sea (they're not saying the exact route). Note Gil Island, where the ferry (ferries only sink in BanglaDesh) sank and the postwar barge bubbles up leaked oil every couple years.
Note the friendly Indian villages and imagine their confidence in Enbridge after the gov't hammered corks in the leaking barge barrels and called it a fix.
You'll clearly see that any spilled oil isn't gonna get sucked out to sea, it will spread up and down every one of those fjords and channels and screw up the whole Inside Passage.
In spite of the often rough seas and rogue waves, Prince Rupert out thru Dixon Entrance ance or Hecate Straight is a much better route IF they upgrade navigation and safety.
Still doesn't cover the fact we're getting NO JOBS and minimal financial benefits exporting raw bitumen.

[Xort]

herbie herbie:

I'm not gonna call names, Xort. Go on Google Earth and start at Kitimat.

I've looked over the route many times.

$1:

Follow the routes out open sea (they're not saying the exact route). Note Gil Island, where the ferry (ferries only sink in BanglaDesh) sank and the postwar barge bubbles up leaked oil every couple years.

I'm suprised that such a deadly area has routine ferry traffic. If the waters are so dangerous that a tanker can't be safely moved, then BC should ban passenger ferry traffic for safety.

I'm not buying that the north coast waters are death traps and ship wreckers.

$1:

Note the friendly Indian villages and imagine their confidence in Enbridge after the gov't hammered corks in the leaking barge barrels and called it a fix.
You'll clearly see that any spilled oil isn't gonna get sucked out to sea, it will spread up and down every one of those fjords and channels and screw up the whole Inside Passage.

Any one of the boats used by the local population could suffer an accident and sink and leak fuel. The scale is different but I would bet local traffic suffers more accidents than the large shipping does. So what it comes down to is, what have you done for me lately?

You speak as if a major spill is going to happen, and than if a spill does happen it's going to be huge. I will admit that is a risk, but that's what life is a blance of risks. Every day people risk their lifes in calculated risks, I wonder if we would hear half as much bitching if the oilsands were located inside BC.

$1:

In spite of the often rough seas and rogue waves, Prince Rupert out thru Dixon Entrance ance or Hecate Straight is a much better route IF they upgrade navigation and safety.

Strait, not Straight. And people make snide comments about my spelling.

Anyway, people will complain about Prince Rupert just as much as Kitimat. Is PR a safer route? Maybe. Was Kitimat suggested when the real desired route was PR? Sounds a little too sneaky for my taste.

$1:

Still doesn't cover the fact we're getting NO JOBS and minimal financial benefits exporting raw bitumen.

10% of the royalties, and the jobs from the port work for BC. Not a bad deal for doing nothing.

Also it's not raw bitumen, that's mostly sand and clay, it's semi processed. A nit picky point, but that the export is more like crude oil than what is mined out of the ground.

This pipeline is great because it frees up exports from being captive to mid west refineries paying sub market prices. Now the USA has to in part bid against China and the rest of the world for price.

The piepline also lowers the cost of the processing by cutting out the rail transport of distillate. The rail transport is also far less safe than a pipeline. So the operating cost goes down, making harder (more expensive) to access bitumen viable, and it's safer for the enviroment.

[herbie]

Kitimat is chosen as it's an opportunistic shithole that owes its existence to completely fucking the environment. They're the ones you can buy off with more dollars. Go - offer them 51 jobs instead of 50, see how high they jump for the extra one.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Xort Xort:

Is that a yes or a no? If it's a yes, that is retarded. If it was a no, then why bring it up? Other than pointless emotional arguments about how dangerous it sounds?

It's already been spelled out in black and white in the link I provided.
Kitimat is pretty much the worst choice for a port. It's almost as if someone thought, "Hmmm where's the enviromentally riskiest place on the west coast from which we can ship oil oversees?"

[Gunnair]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Xort Xort:

Is that a yes or a no? If it's a yes, that is retarded. If it was a no, then why bring it up? Other than pointless emotional arguments about how dangerous it sounds?

It's already been spelled out in black and white in the link I provided.
Kitimat is pretty much the worst choice for a port. It's almost as if someone thought, "Hmmm where's the enviromentally riskiest place on the west coast from which we can ship oil oversees?"

Somebody is playing dumb....or somebody is actually dumb.

Wonder which it is?

[Zipperfish]

The problem isn't stupid people. The problem is that the stupid people don't know they're stupid.