[Thanos]

It'll probably be the best constructed, most intensely inspected, and most efficiently maintained pipeline on the planet. Ditto with the Kitimat loading terminal when it's completed. All of which will mean absolutely nothing when some rattletrap Chinese or Sri Lankan-registered tanker busts up on a shoal right after being fully loaded at the terminal.

I potentially stand to make a lot of money off of this personally if I get to work on the pipeline. Doesn't mean I'll be looking forward to it because there's no way that some nightmare scenario isn't going to happen somewhere, if not during construction then afterwards when operations are long underway. Like they said about a million times in the first three Star Wars films, I just have a bad feeling about this one.

[Strutz]

Thanos Thanos:

It'll probably be the best constructed, most intensely inspected, and most efficiently maintained pipeline on the planet. Ditto with the Kitimat loading terminal when it's completed. All of which will mean absolutely nothing when some rattletrap Chinese or Sri Lankan-registered tanker busts up on a shoal right after being fully loaded at the terminal.

I potentially stand to make a lot of money off of this personally if I get to work on the pipeline. Doesn't mean I'll be looking forward to it because there's no way that some nightmare scenario isn't going to happen somewhere, if not during construction then afterwards when operations are long underway. Like they said about a million times in the first three Star Wars films, I just have a bad feeling about this one.

Yep. Me too, unfortunately. Your points made are probably very true, both the positive and negative.

I am currently living on an island on the central coast, south of Kitimat. Believe me, people here are not pleased about this.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

Assuming they do put aside the 1 billion in contingency funds in case of accident,

$1 Billion may not be enough. Remember, there are beaches STILL coated in Exxon Valdez oil almost 25 years later after that spill. Many of the affected fisheries and their reliant communities never did recover. And that's just the 'economic' impact. The environment at risk for destruction has an intrisic value all of its own, in absence of economic activity.

[Freakinoldguy]

Thanos Thanos:

It'll probably be the best constructed, most intensely inspected, and most efficiently maintained pipeline on the planet. Ditto with the Kitimat loading terminal when it's completed. All of which will mean absolutely nothing when some rattletrap Chinese or Sri Lankan-registered tanker busts up on a shoal right after being fully loaded at the terminal.

I potentially stand to make a lot of money off of this personally if I get to work on the pipeline. Doesn't mean I'll be looking forward to it because there's no way that some nightmare scenario isn't going to happen somewhere, if not during construction then afterwards when operations are long underway. Like they said about a million times in the first three Star Wars films, I just have a bad feeling about this one.

You're right. The pipeline isn't the issue. It's the tankers and despite Enbridge's claim about them being escorted by 2 tugs, a deep water pilot and god, human foibles come into play which makes me very nervous especially considering, I've had the misfortune of seeing first hand the troubles that happen when you combine ships, immovable hazards to navigation and idiots.

I'm also suspect about the cost of a cleanup for a major spill. The news tonight said the high estimate was 9.4 billion and low end was 2.4 billion. Neither of which Enbridge would probably be willing or even capable of paying. So who's left on the hook for the cost?

Another problem is that Douglas Channel isn't a river and the only way to clean a spill of bitumen would be to dredge it up like the Kalamazoo River which isn't going to happen given the depth, currents and the fact that it'd likely shut down all navigation to Kitimat if they wanted to do it properly which, would mean no revenue while they cleaned it up which, means no money to clean it up which means the Taxpayers of BC would get the priviledge of paying for the lions share of the cost since it's already been mentioned that Enbridge can't secure the kind of insurance money to pay for a cleanup in a place like Douglas Channel.

Another problem is that Kitimat is going to become the hub for shipping BC natural gas which means even more tanker traffic than even Enbridge would be responsible for and the thought of an oil filled tanker colliding with a natural gas tanker defies the imagination. Prince Rupert would be a much better alternative for both a natural gas and oil terminal since it's open ocean without the requirement to transit a 140 kilometer restricted waterway.

So like I said. The pipeline isn't the real problem it's where they're putting the terminal and who they're allowing to build the pipeline.

[Unsound]

I've heard many times that Prince Rupert would be a much better and safer port, but I've never yet heard why it's not being more seriously considered? I assume it would be a little more expensive to run the pipeline there, but compared to the cost of the massive delays likely to come from insisting on Kitimat it's probably still cheaper in the long run to just compromise on that point. Anyone know why there isn't more talk about that option from the builders?

[Unsound]

Strutz Strutz:

Unsound.... NO amount of money for "insurance" "in case" something happens will come even remotely close to compensate for the damage that will result when an "accident" happens. And something will happen. Eventually. I dread the day.

Realistically though. the oil will move. It's just a matter of whether it's by train, tanker truck, or pipeline. Everything I've read indicates that pipelines are the safest and most efficient way to do it.

[andyt]

Strutz Strutz:

Approved. No way! What a f*ckin' shocker. As if it there was a chance that this project would not be approved.

Let's just see what happens next as they move forward with the actual construction of it.

Unsound.... NO amount of money for "insurance" "in case" something happens will come even remotely close to compensate for the damage that will result when an "accident" happens. And something will happen. Eventually. I dread the day.

That's true of everything we do. Are we doing to dig up the existing pipelines and prevent the existing tankers from shipping the oil? Stop all the natural gas development because something might happen? And so on. All we can do is best practices, but we can't stop all development because something might happen.

[andyt]

Unsound Unsound:

Strutz Strutz:

Unsound.... NO amount of money for "insurance" "in case" something happens will come even remotely close to compensate for the damage that will result when an "accident" happens. And something will happen. Eventually. I dread the day.

Realistically though. the oil will move. It's just a matter of whether it's by train, tanker truck, or pipeline. Everything I've read indicates that pipelines are the safest and most efficient way to do it.

Yep. But the issue isn't really the pipeline. A well constructed pipeline seems like an acceptable risk to me. The main issue are the tankers. Kitimat just isn't a good site for safe tanker travel - should be moved to Prince Rupert.

And a billion dollars in bond for the pipeline is OK (I guess), but it's going to take a lot more if there's a big tanker spill. Enbridge can't wash its hands of the tankers, claiming that's not their responsibility. Don't build the pipeline unless the tanker issue has been addressed, make sure the money is there to deal with any spill, and the response teams in place to deal with it quickly.

For developments that can have an disastrous effect on the environment, it's time we moved to a model where the people profiting from it pay the freight of any damage. Right now the govts are left holding the bag. Probably the best way to do that, since the response teams would respond to more than just one company's mess, is to charge the companys extra taxes that would cover the true cost of cleaning up their messes. If that makes the project uneconomic, then there's no point building it. Right now, many projects are deemed economic by the company reaping the benefits and offloading the cost of the damages on the govt. Should look at that with the oilsands too - what health costs do those projects bring with them, say, and are they being compensated for?

I'd like to see all environmental projects go thru this cost/benefit analysis - looking at all costs, including loss of scenic value and other soft costs - there must be a way to quantify all that and make a decision based on the true cost/benefit.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

Strutz Strutz:

Approved. No way! What a f*ckin' shocker. As if it there was a chance that this project would not be approved.

Let's just see what happens next as they move forward with the actual construction of it.

Unsound.... NO amount of money for "insurance" "in case" something happens will come even remotely close to compensate for the damage that will result when an "accident" happens. And something will happen. Eventually. I dread the day.

That's true of everything we do. Are we doing to dig up the existing pipelines and prevent the existing tankers from shipping the oil? Stop all the natural gas development because something might happen? And so on. All we can do is best practices, but we can't stop all development because something might happen.

We're not going to put that genie back in the bottle, but let's not get the genie drunk at a frat party either.

[andyt]

If we use the standard of "something will happen" with every project we do, we might as well go back to the caves now. Enbridge pipeline is no worse than any other - in fact the 60 yr old Kinder Morgan line is probably much more dangerous.

We gotta move that oil. Rail is the worse option, but the one they will go to if no pipeline is built. Where they need to chang is the port - go to Prince Rupert instead, use best practices, and then accept that everything we do carries risk.

Right now in Vancouver there's a fuss because the airport is going to build a short pipeline to get it's jetfuel to the airport. Currently they are shipping it by tanker truck - how having thousands of trucks carrying highly volatile fuel any better. As somebody pointed out, just one truck going off on the Alex Fraser bridge would be a disaster for the lower mainland. Pipeline seems like the safest option - but that fuel will move unless we want to shut down the airport.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

If we use the standard of "something will happen" with every project we do, we might as well go back to the caves now. Enbridge pipeline is no worse than any other - in fact the 60 yr old Kinder Morgan line is probably much more dangerous.

We gotta move that oil. Rail is the worse option, but the one they will go to if no pipeline is built. Where they need to chang is the port - go to Prince Rupert instead, use best practices, and then accept that everything we do carries risk.

Right now in Vancouver there's a fuss because the airport is going to build a short pipeline to get it's jetfuel to the airport. Currently they are shipping it by tanker truck - how having thousands of trucks carrying highly volatile fuel any better. As somebody pointed out, just one truck going off on the Alex Fraser bridge would be a disaster for the lower mainland. Pipeline seems like the safest option - but that fuel will move unless we want to shut down the airport.

I've seen a few fuel trucks go into the Fraser in my day. Remarkably little impact, for the most part, especially at ebb tide. That river moves. Lost 10,000 L of diesel into it one night from a fuel truck. Was waiting until morning to see the damage, but it was all gone by sun up.

My concern with Enbridge is that the gummint has slashed environment, so all their talk about "world-class response" is a bunch of drivel.

[andyt]

Jet fuel. The danger isn't it going in the river, that will evaporate pretty quickly. The danger is a truck getting into an accident and igniting.

What you say about the government applies to every project we do.

I doubt Enbridge will go just because of the native component. True for a lot of development, and it's going to cost us plenty.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

Jet fuel. The danger isn't it going in the river, that will evaporate pretty quickly. The danger is a truck getting into an accident and igniting.

What you say about the government applies to every project we do.

I doubt Enbridge will go just because of the native component. True for a lot of development, and it's going to cost us plenty.

I doubt it will go because people here don't trust either the company or the government to protect thier interests.

[fifeboy]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Ideally we should be selling refined oil to the Chinese and employing our own people to do the refining

Now that's a good idea. Selling a finished product! Added value at home!

[andyt]

It's been seriously proposed - ie somebody trying to raise financing. You'd still have tankers in very dangerous waters, just carrying lighter products. Not sure how much better that would be, but at least some of the jobs would stay here. But that's always been said about the oilsands in general - never seemed to make economic sense to build refineries right where the oil comes from, for some reason.