Rachel Notley tours Canada to shill for pipelines

140 posts / 0 new
Last post
epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Pondering wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

No one is attacking the production of oil. Alberta can produce as much as it wants. It can't impose dangerous pipelines on other provinces regardless of who owns the oil companies.

..the movements are more ambitious. like the treaty alliance, the leap and many others. the object is to first stop the expansion of the tar sands and eventually end it as it is today.

http://www.treatyalliance.org/treaty/

That may be so but the arguments defeating pipelines like EE and Trans Mountain are rooted in local concerns not shutting down the oil sands. The indigenous court cases are about the threat of pipelines to indigenous water and lands not shutting down the oil sands. I know of no movements trying to close existing pipelines being used for oil only preventing new ones. The oil sands will be exploited until they are no longer profitable. 

..local concerns also includes climate change which shows up in poll after poll. local concerns includes the implementation of undrip and we see this in the local alliances made with indigenous folk. we see this with the massive financial support for indigenous court cases. the tars sands is in violation of undrip. you may believe that folks don't understand the connections but they do. local concerns include the politics of power. they understand the 99% vs 1%. you only have to go to an organizational meeting or demo to see this. it's not a secret agenda drummed up in back rooms.

Unionist

Pogo wrote:
  I am not against opposing pipelines for environmental reasons or to strike a blow against capitalism gone wrong, I just find it silly to pretend it is a significant part of the battle to stop global warming.

You continue to find it easier to refute arguments that no one here has made. No wonder - because defending Rachel Notley's shameless marketing tour would be a superhuman task. I don't blame you for not taking on that challenge.

Opposing Rachel Notley's lust for pipelines is not a significant part of the struggle against climate change. It's rather a statement, by people everywhere, including Indigenous people, that we don't want you flushing your toilet in our back yard.

The movement in Québec against Energy East included many forces who don't appear to care about climate change per se. And speaking from experience, both positive and negative, therein lies the genius of successful mass mobilization. People will rise up in common action, for common goals, irrespective of whether they share common ideologies or agree on all other issues. That's the way it works in the workplace. We unite to fight for better wages, working conditions, health and safety, end to harassment, etc., with masses of workers some of whom are racist, sexist, pro-capitalist - you know, just like an average neighbourhood.

And that's why Notley's shilling will fail. She says you can't have a bike lane without embracing her filthy bitumen. But like you, Pogo, she's not refuting the main argument of the opposition, which is: "Take your pipeline and shove it, we don't work for you any more!"

Unionist

And epaulo - I agree with you too. It is very wrong to underestimate the level of understanding which the popular movement has attained with respect to climate change, Indigenous rights, etc. But the fact remains. We need to unite with everyone possible - not just the enlightened, not just our friends - in order to take one step after another, which proverbially is the only way to cover a great distance. At least, that's a lesson I learned long ago, and painfully, when trying to organize in the workplace.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Unionist wrote:

And epaulo - I agree with you too. It is very wrong to underestimate the level of understanding which the popular movement has attained with respect to climate change, Indigenous rights, etc. But the fact remains. We need to unite with everyone possible - not just the enlightened, not just our friends - in order to take one step after another, which proverbially is the only way to cover a great distance. At least, that's a lesson I learned long ago, and painfully, when trying to organize in the workplace.

..i agree with all of what you said. i see that expansion happening with the struggle against line 3 down south of us. for the time being it is connecting with other activists such as those resisting dakota access but this branches out to include, like you say, everyone possible. just like what happened in bc and que. 

Pogo Pogo's picture

Unionist wrote:

And epaulo - I agree with you too. It is very wrong to underestimate the level of understanding which the popular movement has attained with respect to climate change, Indigenous rights, etc.

So to be clear.  Climate change has no place in this discussion?

Pogo Pogo's picture

Pondering wrote:
 

And that is happening. More and more people are using bicycles, laws are reducing fuel emmissions and electricity is being generated by renewable resources. Houses are better insulated. Geothermal is being used. No one has argued otherwise so I don't know what you are disagreeing with.

I would say that the little bit that is happening now is basically rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  That is why I guess I am a bit impatient.  

NorthReport

'Sport to make fun of': New refinery in Alberta eager to prove the doubters wrong

It is businessman Ian MacGregor's dogged championing of Alberta's much-criticized and over-budget new diesel refinery that has pushed the project to near-completion

http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/sport-to-make-fun-o...

NorthReport

Bankrupt oil companies dump $100 million in clean up costs on Orphan Well Association in under two years

The Alberta government is concerned more companies will strip off bad assets, handing the bill to the OWA, and potentially, onto taxpayers

http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/bankrupt-oil-compan...

Unionist

Pogo wrote:

Unionist wrote:

And epaulo - I agree with you too. It is very wrong to underestimate the level of understanding which the popular movement has attained with respect to climate change, Indigenous rights, etc.

So to be clear.  Climate change has no place in this discussion?

You have great difficulty responding to what people say, so you reformulate it to make it easier. Interesting tactic. My turn:

So let me understand you clearly: Are you saying that the continent should be crisscrossed with pipelines coated in special reflective materials designed to counteract the GHG effect? Is that what you're saying? That's an interesting proposal. Let me ponder that a while.

6079_Smith_W

Thing is, neither Alberta voters nor the Alberta government get to decide where pipelines are built outside their province. If the rest of us don't want them, we have the option of not following Notley's advice on this issue. Booting her out of office really has no bearing on it at all.

Unless we also oppose Alberta's carbon tax, which will be gone with her.

But if having a real enemy like Jason Kenney makes it easier for those who feel conflicted by not agreeing with every government policy, sure, tell Alberta voters they should not vote NDP. They are also free to follow or ignore that advice.

 

NorthReport

Thanks Smith, well said.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

There was a 4-page spread in a recent Saturday Journal de Montreal about the hate for Quebec in the West, especially Alberta. The oily shills compare the West-East pipeline which is not wanted in Quebec with Montreal sewage going into the St. Lawrence. 

The oily crap that Alberta wants to export at a much higher cost than we can import would be headed for Quebec. The crap that Montreal puts in the river is not headed for Alberta. Certainly, Montreal should stop dumping sewage in the river, but this is an issue that people downstream should complain about, not people in Alberta.
 

NorthReport

Since when are people not allowed to comment about something taking place elsewhere?

Pogo Pogo's picture

Unionist wrote:

So let me understand you clearly: Are you saying that the continent should be crisscrossed with pipelines coated in special reflective materials designed to counteract the GHG effect? Is that what you're saying? That's an interesting proposal. Let me ponder that a while.

No, but I do admire your ability to deflect. If you bothered to read you would see that I have participated in protests against pipelines.

Some people seem to read only to find something to criticize. To that point I will say I admire the strength of purpose of epaulo and enjoy reading his posts whether I agree or not with his conclusions.

NorthReport
R.E.Wood

progressive17 wrote:

There was a 4-page spread in a recent Saturday Journal de Montreal about the hate for Quebec in the West, especially Alberta. The oily shills compare the West-East pipeline which is not wanted in Quebec with Montreal sewage going into the St. Lawrence. 

The oily crap that Alberta wants to export at a much higher cost than we can import would be headed for Quebec. The crap that Montreal puts in the river is not headed for Alberta. Certainly, Montreal should stop dumping sewage in the river, but this is an issue that people downstream should complain about, not people in Alberta.
 

If Albertans can't complain about Montreal dumping sewage into the river, then you should also refrain from criticizing things that happen in provinces other than your own. 

See - not fair, is it?

R.E.Wood

And for the rabid Notley-haters around here, just remember that her government has made large and profound progressive strides forward over the last two years, and your cheerleading for her defeat due to the single issue of pipelines is completely illogical. Of course she is going to be in support of Alberta's largest industry - she has to strike a rational balance. And that's something that Jason Kenney will not do with his new United Conservatives, who - if you get your wish - would erase every bit of progress Notley has made, knock Alberta back to the proverbial Stone Age regarding social issues, human rights, labour, and - oh yes! - the environment. Any of you wishing for Notley to lose power are not considering the whole picture.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..this thread has nothing to do with the alberta ndp getting reelected or not. and i don't hate notley. i actually hope the ndp gets reelected because i understand what kenny is all about. that doesn't give them a pass on support for the tarsands and pushing pipelines down people's throats.

R.E.Wood

Sorry, epaulo, but you're absolutely wrong when you say "this thread has nothing to do with the alberta ndp getting reelected or not." In the very first post of this thread, Unionist stated:

Unionist wrote:

Hopefully Alberta voters will soon turf this pathetic excuse for a "social democrat" and elect the real thing - Jason Kenney. Then we can all look the enemy in the face without feeling conflicted.

Pondering

progressive17 wrote:
The crap that Montreal puts in the river is not headed for Alberta. Certainly, Montreal should stop dumping sewage in the river, but this is an issue that people downstream should complain about, not people in Alberta.

On top of which Montreal does not regularly dump raw sewage in the river and they worked to contain the worst of the raw sewage to the immediate area as it was being dumped. The problem was a main interceptor that needed repair. So, a controlled spill was done so workers could repair the problem which they did in record time. 

As a pipeline argument this was just fake news political propaganda. 

https://globalnews.ca/news/2330913/why-is-montreal-dumping-8-billion-lit...

Officials with Environment Canada have said an expert panel hired by the federal government to examine the issue concluded the risks associated with waiting are worse than the city’s current plan.

Caroline Blais, a director at the federal agency, told the Canadian Press that there is “little likelihood” it will affect fish production.

“The experts’ evaluation is that the risks of not going ahead could result in impacts that are larger than if we didn’t proceed in the way Montreal wants to go,” she said.

NorthReport

This thread is a good example of why progressive forces and the left wins so few elections.

Pondering

epaulo13 wrote:

No one is attacking the production of oil. Alberta can produce as much as it wants. It can't impose dangerous pipelines on other provinces regardless of who owns the oil companies.

..the movements are more ambitious. like the treaty alliance, the leap and many others. the object is to first stop the expansion of the tar sands and eventually end it as it is today.

http://www.treatyalliance.org/treaty/

I misspoke. My point was specific to the pipelines. If climate change were proven a hoax we still wouldn't want the pipelines. Climate change activists are certainly contributing to the fight but the primary issue is the threat to the immediate environment.

So, the argument that it won't have an impact on climate change is immaterial. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

R.E.Wood wrote:

Sorry, epaulo, but you're absolutely wrong when you say "this thread has nothing to do with the alberta ndp getting reelected or not." In the very first post of this thread, Unionist stated:

Unionist wrote:

Hopefully Alberta voters will soon turf this pathetic excuse for a "social democrat" and elect the real thing - Jason Kenney. Then we can all look the enemy in the face without feeling conflicted.

..you misunderstood what i said wood and i can understand why.  what i was referring to is this thread has no influence on whether or not the ndp gets elected in alberta.

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Thing is, neither Alberta voters nor the Alberta government get to decide where pipelines are built outside their province. If the rest of us don't want them, we have the option of not following Notley's advice on this issue. Booting her out of office really has no bearing on it at all.

We all understand that, Smith. So why is she wasting her time and Albertans' money in running around the country? Because she's trying to influence public opinion and ultimately federal government policy. Shutting her up would definitely be a salutary step in ensuring the failure of that campaign.

Quote:
Unless we also oppose Alberta's carbon tax, which will be gone with her.

Who cares? Carbon taxes are a cowardly excuse for not setting carbon limits.

Quote:
But if having a real enemy like Jason Kenney makes it easier for those who feel conflicted by not agreeing with every government policy, sure, tell Alberta voters they should not vote NDP. They are also free to follow or ignore that advice.

Exposing phoney progressives like Notley, whose one and only purpose in life is political self-perpetuation, even if means adopting Conservative policies, is a necessary step in making room for real representatives of the popular movement to come to the fore, whether in Alberta or nationally.

I will never tell Alberta voters whom to vote for. I will, however, not keep my mouth shut when frauds like Notley mount the national stage at the behest of the oil billionaires. And shivering in one's boots that if Notley falls, Kenney will rise? Not my problem. That's the sacred democratic choice of Alberta voters. They've amply demonstrated their electoral wisdom over many generations, haven't they?

6079_Smith_W

Well that's the thing; in that event it won't be us who are looking the real enemy in the face, it will be Albertans.

And considering that we have of those less ambiguous enemies in power here in SK, I think I could deal with the conflict of an NDP leader if it means not having the threat of the rest of our crowns being shut down or sold off in the next two years.

This pipeline issue notwithstanding, I am happy with the job Notley is doing and I have no problem urging people I know there to vote for her next time. If anything, Kenney's election as party leader may give her a slightly better chance when it comes to that longshot.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

 ..no one this board should be satisfied with an ndp government supporting a 40% expansion of the tar sands project. whatever is on the positive side of that ndp ledger is no match for the incredible escalating disaster re the financial, indigenous and ecological fallout from this project.  for once i'd like to hear notley supporters acknowledge that it is out of control. that solutions are not coming forth in comparison to that escalating disaster. that pipelines are a bad idea for a whole host of reasons.  

6079_Smith_W

Plenty do. For whatever reason she is pushing them, she is wrong.

We have a pretty good comparison here in NDP governments which supported uranium mining, and there was also opposition within the party. The difference there is that the NDP have never held power before, but there are people in all parties in Alberta who have concerns about the oil and gas industry.

Pondering

While successfully getting pipelines through would certainly increase Notley's chances not getting them through shouldn't hurt her as Conservative government haven't done any better. 

If Albertans want to keep shooting themselves in the foot with Conservative governments that is entirely up to them. As a country we repeatedly elected Harper so don't look to us for rescue. Ontario has some sort of masochistic relationship with the Liberals and when they finally turn on them they go Conservative. Likewise federally the Conservatives are in second place and threaten the Liberals. 

The notion that the rest of Canada are raving progressives just isn't reflective of reality. 

Oil companies can't be trusted.  Government can't be trusted to regulate them. If that were not the case environmentalists would be losing. 

R.E.Wood

epaulo13 wrote:

..you misunderstood what i said wood and i can understand why.  what i was referring to is this thread has no influence on whether or not the ndp gets elected in alberta.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, epaulo.

I have no further response to Unionist - there's no way to rationally counter his rabid, irrational, and sexist ("Shut her up") ranting about Notley.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

R.E.Wood wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

..you misunderstood what i said wood and i can understand why.  what i was referring to is this thread has no influence on whether or not the ndp gets elected in alberta.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, epaulo.

I have no further response to Unionist - there's no way to rationally counter his rabid, irrational, and sexist ("Shut her up") ranting about Notley.

..not a problem

..what unionist is saying is, i believe, mild in comparison to how people are feeling towards notley as she prepares to intervene in an indigenous court action arguing they don't have the right to determine what happens on their land. i would strive to understand the enormity of the damage that is being done and why these feelings are here.

Unionist

R.E.Wood wrote:

I have no further response to Unionist - there's no way to rationally counter his rabid, irrational, and sexist ("Shut her up") ranting about Notley.

Nice anti-Semitic rant.

NorthReport

Has Rachel Notley been thrown overboard by the Trudeau team?: Steward

The Prime Minister and Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr have left it up to the Alberta Premier to embark on speaking tours to tout the benefits of a pipeline that they gave the green light to. Notley must step into the spotlight or risk being thrown overboard at home.

 

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2017/11/14/has-rachel-no...

Unionist

epaulo13 wrote:

..this thread has nothing to do with the alberta ndp getting reelected or not. and i don't hate notley. i actually hope the ndp gets reelected because i understand what kenny is all about. that doesn't give them a pass on support for the tarsands and pushing pipelines down people's throats.

You're wasting your breath, epaulo. You're engaging with individuals who care more about which party gets elected than what that party stands for in words and deeds. They will inevitably view every issue in that light. And consequently, they will never join in any popular movement to pressure their favourite party to take more progressive stands - because that could be seen as criticizing, weakening, defeating, your own party. Did you notice how  my sarcastic opening post was actually taken by them as my desire to see Jason Kenney elected in Alberta? That's the kind of position they understand. That's the kind of position they engage with, calling it "rabid", "sexist", and so on. And the world view of these people represents the biggest threat to democracy developing and expanding - because it is inimical to the voice and the interests of ordinary people. This brutal brainless partisanship must be opposed at every step - even while always challenging each other to unite in pursuit of real goals, and not in servile slavish adulation of Rachel Notley or Jagmeet Singh or Justin Trudeau or Andrew Scheer. It's the lowest form of religion - doesn't even offer life after death or other such spiritual rewards. It's just plain sad.

 

NorthReport

This is the kind of shit the Alberta Premier has to put up, with but no according to Unionist she needs more attacks. Fill your boots Unionist.

Alberta NDP's coal relief program a lose-lose proposition

 

 

http://edmontonsun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-alberta-ndps-coal-re...

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

This is the kind of shit the Alberta Premier has to put up, with but no according to Unionist she needs more attacks. Fill your boots Unionist.

Alberta NDP's coal relief program a lose-lose proposition

I'm confident Notley will stare down these vicious attacks and stand firm on the coal program. It's the right thing to do.

Martin N.

Unionist wrote:

Um, Magoo, old buddy, this thread isn't about whether we should use oil and gas or not. It's about Big Oil and its slavish Alberta politicians (Kenney, Notley, etc.) looking for way to get their toxic product out of landlocked Alberta to refineries and ports. Québec stood up, as one, and told them in graphic terms where they could put their bitumen en route to Irving - somewhere else. To the shock and horror of the Notleys of this world, Energy East died. Now, in her/their desperation, they're looking for alternatives. I believe the people of B.C. will be no less unanimous in their opposition than we were.

So please, please, try and pay attention. We'll use oil and gas if we feel like it. But no one will use our towns and villages and waterways - and our lives - as a highway for their filthy profits. Not if we can help it.

I do trust, Magoo, that my attempt to explain the issue raised in this thread is better understood now.

Thank you for your eloquent explanation of your position on using Quebec's "towns and villages and waterways - and our lives - as a highway for their filthy profits. Not if we can help it." Could you kindly clarify if this position also includes Saudi Arabian "filthy profits" for sending tankers up the St Lawrence Seaway, through the heart of Quebec or is your position singly reserved for Canadian oil?

 

You must understand my confusion when the entire focus of progressive antagonism to "filthy profits" on the west coast is directed at the false equivalency of increased tanker traffic equalling increased oil spills in west coast bc/ Washington state waters when there have been 0 spills in the past 60 years of tanker traffic. To my simple arithmetic, devoid of post-truth revisionism, 0 spills x 10 tankers per year equals 0 spills x 100 tankers per year. Feel free to include oil spills from Saudi tankers on the east coast, if informative.

Martin N.

Pogo wrote:

Corporations are not driving the cars, buying the goods or taking plane trips to exotic locations. If all the oil came from state owned corporations the problem would not change. Corporations evil as they may be are just a convenient scapegoat so individuals can avoid taking responsibility for their own action.

OMG, pogo, such incisive, thoughtful commentary. Very welcome among all the post-truth shilling. If corporations are inherently evil, where do the SJWs believe the funds to address their solutions will come from?

Martin N.

NorthReport wrote:

Mind you, whoever thought up this stupid tactic needs to have their head read 

How unpleasant for a bunch of kayakers out of Deep Cove to encounter something like this!

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/british-columbia/kinder-morgan-erects-razor-wire-fence-around-trans-mountain-terminal-in-burrard-inlet-1.4398678

Yes, how unpleasant that "nature is being encroached on by industry" (article). Considering that Worksafe BC has rather stringent regulations regarding worker safely (C 45) and the sad fact of unlawful civil disobedience (as opposed to lawful civil demonstration) all industrial sites are subject to enclosures of one type or another. It is impossible for razor wire 10 feet off the surface to affect a kayaker, other than visually.

6079_Smith_W

Just to clarify Martin, are you claiming there have been no tanker oil spills on the west coast?

 

Martin N.

NorthReport wrote:

This thread is a good example of why progressive forces and the left wins so few elections.

Because they are completely detached from reality. When they do win (Notley and Horgan), they are immediately confronted with reality and forced into pretzelogic, backpedalling and wasting public resources trying to clean up their own mess. Hence, Notley defending the oil industry and Horgan sucking up to LNG proposals.

Martin N.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Just to clarify Martin, are you claiming there have been no tanker oil spills on the west coast?

Tanker spills attributable to the carriage of crude oil in the confines of routes in and out of Juan de Fuca Strait destined for Puget Sound in WA or KM in Vancouver, in the context of this discussion, omitting fuel oil, oily ballast pumping or any other sundry spills not connected to the carriage of crude as a cargo.

 

6079_Smith_W

Oh, so not the Exxon Valdez, the COSCO Busan, the Apex Houston, The Pacific Coast, the MobilOil,

Or on the east coast, the NEPCO 140 which went down in the St. Lawrence, or further out to sea, the Odyssey which spilled over four times as much the Exxon Valdez en route to Newfoundland.

And that's not even getting in to the Gulf of Mexico.

Yes pipelines are more prone to spills. No there have been not been zero oil tanker spills on the west or east coasts. And begging the question to pretend this is just about the strait still doesn't make it zero risk.

(edit)

Though the Arco Anchorage did spill its load of oil in the strait, in Port Angeles harbour in 1985.

http://www.ioscproceedings.org/doi/abs/10.7901/2169-3358-1989-1-459?code...

 

 

NorthReport

All Kinder Morgan has done by putting up razor wire is providing the environmentalists more ammunition it was a dumb ass approach and I will be surprised to see this pipeline project run through the Lower Mainland where being an environmentalist is almost if not already mainstream today

And sure enough CKNW were interviewing a Deep Cove kayaking organization spokesperson this morning who was quite offended by seeing all this razor wire while out paddling this weekend and rightfully so

I sure this is just the beginning of more bad news for Kinder Morgan Seriously, how stupid can they be?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

One thing Notley could probably do to make pipelines significantly safer in the eyes of the public would be to nationalize them (like Norway) and put the profits into the public purse (like Norway's one TRILLION dollar Sovereign Oil Fund).

The pipes themselves would be pretty much the same, but I imagine a lot more people saying "well, nothing's totally failsafe!" or "it's a risk, but it's worth it!".

Pondering

Concerning East coast spills: No spills are acceptable but not all spills are equal. Bitumen carries with it more risk because it doesn't all float making it much more difficult to clean up. 

If EE were to go through the majority of the oil would be for foreign markets not for Canadian refineries. Even if it displaced some oil in Quebec refineries would still keep importing the light crude that their refineries are build for. 

EE would multiply the tankers with more dangerous bitumen. 

Martin N.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Oh, so not the Exxon Valdez, the COSCO Busan, the Apex Houston, The Pacific Coast, the MobilOil,

Or on the east coast, the NEPCO 140 which went down in the St. Lawrence, or further out to sea, the Odyssey which spilled over four times as much the Exxon Valdez en route to Newfoundland.

And that's not even getting in to the Gulf of Mexico.

Yes pipelines are more prone to spills. No there have been not been zero oil tanker spills on the west or east coasts. And begging the question to pretend this is just about the strait still doesn't make it zero risk.

(edit)

Though the Arco Anchorage did spill its load of oil in the strait, in Port Angeles harbour in 1985.

http://www.ioscproceedings.org/doi/abs/10.7901/2169-3358-1989-1-459?code...

 

 

The opposition to KM in BC is directed at the increase in tanker traffic in BC waters due to the KM expansion. This is the focus of my response but it is difficult to isolated BC traffic from WA traffic because they both ply Juan de Fuca Strait.

 

complaining about 30 year old single hull tanker incidents when modern tankers have double hulls and significant failsafes is a red herring. So is using tanker incidents in other jurisdictions. Statistically, what is the risk, given 0 incidents in the previous 60 years, and the impossibility of 0 risk, of a future tanker incident? Transport Canada considers the increased risk minimal.

Martin N.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

One thing Notley could probably do to make pipelines significantly safer in the eyes of the public would be to nationalize them (like Norway) and put the profits into the public purse (like Norway's one TRILLION dollar Sovereign Oil Fund).

The pipes themselves would be pretty much the same, but I imagine a lot more people saying "well, nothing's totally failsafe!" or "it's a risk, but it's worth it!".

Well no, the pipes are not the same in the sense that new infrastructure has much better metallurgy and corrosion coatings plus the quality control is rigorous and very high tech. The concern with pipelines isn't the new ones but the 60 year old pipes that are corroding because of perforated coatings and electrolysis.

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:

complaining about 30 year old single hull tanker incidents when modern tankers have double hulls and significant failsafes is a red herring. So is using tanker incidents in other jurisdictions. Statistically, what is the risk, given 0 incidents in the previous 60 years, and the impossibility of 0 risk, of a future tanker incident? Transport Canada considers the increased risk minimal.

Minimal isn't none. There is no red herring being used. Oil companies only take the safety measures they are forced to take. We don't trust them. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster#The_train

Even before the Lac-Mégantic accident, attempts were made to require redesign or replacement of existing cars in the U.S.; these were delayed amidst fierce lobbying from rail and petroleum industry groups concerned about the cost.[30] Since 2011, the Canadian government has required tank cars with a thicker shell, though older models are still allowed to operate.[31]

Older models are still allowed to operate therefore oil companies will continue using them to save money. 

The oil industry may use safer tankers but they will still cut corners where they can therefore safer technically doesn't mean safer in practice. 

To rehabilitate its reputation the oil companies would have to begin behaving responsibly. I am certain that won't happen. Even as they desperately push for pipelines they won't clean up old wells. No one talks about the lifespan of pipelines or who will pay to remove them from the ground once the companies stop using them. 

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:

Well no, the pipes are not the same in the sense that new infrastructure has much better metallurgy and corrosion coatings plus the quality control is rigorous and very high tech. The concern with pipelines isn't the new ones but the 60 year old pipes that are corroding because of perforated coatings and electrolysis.

So what are oil companies doing about the old pipelines? That new pipelines are better is meaningless because the oil companies themselves are no better. They just put down mats to prevent salmon from spawning without permits to do so because they wanted to save money.  You expect me to trust their quality control!

It doesn't matter what the oil industry says because they can't be trusted. They could say the pipes were triple walled it wouldn't matter. 

6079_Smith_W

Martin N. wrote:

complaining about 30 year old single hull tanker incidents when modern tankers have double hulls and significant failsafes is a red herring. So is using tanker incidents in other jurisdictions. Statistically, what is the risk, given 0 incidents in the previous 60 years, and the impossibility of 0 risk, of a future tanker incident? Transport Canada considers the increased risk minimal.

You said zero. It isn't zero. Even in the juan de fuca strait it is not zero. Oil tankers spill. Put more of them in that sealane and there is a greater chance that there will be more there, as there have been in other places.

 

Pages