Kinder Morgan Pipleline Project

montrealer58 wrote:

I don't think the risks to our drinking water and our farmland are worth the temporary profit from the transportation of dirty oil from Alberta to the ocean and other places.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

From my perspective if Keystone goes ahead and Kinder Morgan can be delayed by court cases and protests for a couple of years we may just dodge the bullet. A glut of tar sands poison on the market will further depress the price paid for it and Kinder Morgan might be priced out of the game.

And just because I saw some Alberta town hall footage, fuck you Trudeau and all the useful idiots who were foolish enough to believe that someone born into a silver spoon lifestyle was a man of the people. 

What I love is the Albertan's who aer now demanding that the rest of Canada has to risk our natural environment. I say let the Eastern bastards who live just on the other side of the Great Divide eat bitumen and drink water from fracked areas.

Odd how people from one part of the country get really, really angry thinking that people from another part of the country think those from their part all have the same opinion. And then do the same thing.

Sean unless they moved Ottawa to the foothills of the Rockies I was not referring to your part of the world. Now we have an NDP government in Alberta cheering on the oil industry. If you don't think that is a cultural trait that runs deep and is shared by the vast majority of Alberta's voters that is fine by me. I think it is a very Albertan trait. I have neighbours in the Comox Valley who work in the tar sands and they were all Reform types but as far as they are concerned the right to exploit the oil economy trumps our right to an environment that is and can remain the basis of a vibrant tourist industry.  

Actually I do not think it is an Albertan trait. I do think that a local bias in favour of local industry exists everywhere. I also think that there are people on all sides of the issues in all provinces and that they be a minority in one place and a majority in another but they exist in both places. I also think that a large number of people biased towards the  oil sands are people who have come from toher parts of Canada to work there (so no "Alberta" trait) and that a number of strong boosters include big money -- Bay Street Toronto etc.

This is a fight for opinions and you don't win anything by making those who may already be on your side become invisible. That is why I would avoid the generalizations.

Sure speak about -- a lot of Albertans -- but perhaps holding off on claiming that this represents all of them allows for some people there to agree with your opinion.

Lastly, I have often pointed out that if you want a part of the country to step back for the good of all on an asset then we should be prepared to invest in building a replacement enterprise funded by the country. This was my problem with LEAP it did not, in my view, include any kind of proposal for what Alberta is to do other than suck it up. I don't want to send the message they are on their own with the costs for complying with a national direction when they are going to pay disproportionately.

Dp

jjuares wrote:

montrealer58 wrote:

I don't think the risks to our drinking water and our farmland are worth the temporary profit from the transportation of dirty oil from Alberta to the ocean and other places.

Yes, only Alberta has " dirty oil". I am so glad that Eastern Canada keeps importing oil from Saudi Arabia with its strong environmental and human rights record.

Bitumen is not crude oil and the pipelines that are supposed to be built are not designed to wean us off of Saudi oil they are to allow foreign corporations to move the tar sands gunk they bought to foreign markets. 

Your use of Saudi Arabia is a really transparent red herring.

montrealer58] <p>[quote=jjuares wrote:

jjuares wrote:

montrealer58 wrote:

jjuares wrote:

montrealer58 wrote:

I don't think the risks to our drinking water and our farmland are worth the temporary profit from the transportation of dirty oil from Alberta to the ocean and other places.

Yes, only Alberta has " dirty oil". I am so glad that Eastern Canada keeps importing oil from Saudi Arabia with its strong environmental and human rights record.

The "dirty oil" referred to is the bitumen which is mined in the Athabasca Tar Sands. The oil we import is a higher grade crude which has a lower environmental impact. By the way, the Vancouver area also imports gasoline causing them to enjoy higher prices than in other parts of the country.

Do you really believe that Saudi oil has lower environmental impact? Have you read about their environmental regulations and controls? Well, you do realize that their impact studies aren't made public. It is quite hilarious to have people concerned about pipelines and tankers and not quite seem to understand how imported oil gets to Canada. Hint, it is not carried by humingbirds in their little beaks.

Heavy crude such as is produced in the tar sands has about the same carbon emissions as coal, once it is refined. Lighter crude is quite a bit less than that. Are you sure all of Canadian imported oil comes from the Saudis?

kropotkin1951 wrote:

jjuares wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

jjuares wrote:

montrealer58 wrote:

I don't think the risks to our drinking water and our farmland are worth the temporary profit from the transportation of dirty oil from Alberta to the ocean and other places.

Yes, only Alberta has " dirty oil". I am so glad that Eastern Canada keeps importing oil from Saudi Arabia with its strong environmental and human rights record.

Bitumen is not crude oil and the pipelines that are supposed to be built are not designed to wean us off of Saudi oil they are to allow foreign corporations to move the tar sands gunk they bought to foreign markets. 

Your use of Saudi Arabia is a really transparent red herring.

Bitumen doesn't flow through pipelines at all. Raw bitumen has the consistency of peanut butter. To make it flow it has to be diluted. At that point it has the same consitency as crude oil. Contrary to what you read in many sources this oil at that point does float. It only sinks after a time when dirt and other material mixes with it. This is why a rapid response is needed.

Sorry but contrary to what you have been lied to about, bitumen sinks. You are right though that you need to add toxic chemicals to make the gunk flow and those toxic chemicals when exposed to air in a spill situation cause gases that can affect people with respiratory problems and those susceptible to those problems.

It's wack-a-mole time. First it is about Saudi Arabia and then you spew the industry's alternative facts. Sorry I am not buying your propaganda because it is just not true.

 I don't care if it the Liberal line now ands that your buddy Justin is in favour of the pipelines. Your man Trudeau lies with an ease that is quite disconcerting.

Not all of the bitumen will sink but the claim that none of it will is just oil industry propaganda. I don't hate Albertans I merely despise the idea that people in another province  think they have the right to put my environment at risk.  The Kalamazoo cleanup is already more  than a billion dollars. Of course Kinder Morgan will win no matter if there is a spill or not because they are the biggest shareholder in the cleanup company.

Quote:

This is the first time the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has had a diluted bitumen spill of this size, and responders are “writing the book” on how to respond, said Ralph Dollhopf, EPA incident commander for the spill.

“At minimum, we’re writing a chapter in the oil spill cleanup book on how to identify submerged oil,” Dollhopf said. “We’re writing chapters on how it behaves once it does spill (and) how to recover it.”

What the EPA didn’t expect at the beginning of the spill last July was how much time they would spend extracting the heavier oil submerged in the bottom of the Kalamazoo River.

“In a situation where we don’t have to be concerned with submerged oil, then we clean up the oil on the surface and be done,” Dollhopf said.

But for this spill on a 35-mile stretch of the Kalamazoo River and Talmadge Creek, between 60 and 70 percent of the cleanup time has concerned the submerged oil that sank to the bot­tom of the river and mixed with the sediment, he said.

The EPA has never responded to a spill like this before, Dollhopf said.

The EPA, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Calhoun and Kalamazoo county governments, Enbridge and their contractors had to come up with new strategies and techniques to collect the oil.

Enbridge reported around 819,000 gallons of oil were released on July 26, 2010, when their pipeline ruptured. However, the EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Ad­ministration (PHMSA) are conduct­ing their own investigation into how much oil was released.

Jonathon Gruenke / Kalamazoo GazetteOil on the surface of the Kalamazoo River near Ceresco Dam in Marshall. Cleanup crews work in the Kalamazoo River Friday afternoon to remove oil from the 2010 spill. 

According to the EPA’s website, 766,000 gallons have been recovered and most was floating at the top of the river. Dollhopf said it is unknown how much oil sank to the bottom.

http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2011/07/kalamazoo_river_oi...

Even the industry, if you read closely, acknowledges that some of it will sink. But since it is only when the water moves I guess as long as the spill happened at slack tide the booms might be fairly effective. If however the wind and rain are blowing like crazy, like it does much of the winter, then a lot of the bitumen will sink. 

Albertan's apparently including NDP'ers now want to exacerbate climate change and risk the Salish Sea and the marine life in it for jobs for them. There are lots of ways to make jobs but our oligarchy is tied into oil exportation. I think the Alberta NDP has become a joke. They are bending over backwards to give the oil industry what it wants and the oil industries right wing allies are still attacking it for not doing enough. Oh well a one term government whose major project is facilitating the building of pipelines is what all progressives wanted after the election.

Quote:

Water in the ‘real world’ is not plain water. Sediments—sand, silt, biomass, etc.—are often suspended in water because of energetic physical motions like waves.

Have you ever been to a sandy beach that had waves lapping at the shore line? That water, in motion, has the energy needed to lift the fine grains of sand up from the sea bed into the wave and move it about. When crude oil particles and sediment particles combine, together, they can become denser than water and sink. It’s important to understand that this physical interaction isn’t unique to diluted bitumen. Sediment is most prevalent in near-shore, shallow areas, which can be isolated using booms.

http://www.gatewayfacts.ca/Newsroom/Marine-Protection/Diluted-bitumen-in...

These quotes are from the article K referenced.
"Some have suggested that diluted bitumen weathers rapidly, with diluent evaporating leaving bitumen behind to sink. This isn’t true. Diluted bitumen does not weather to a pure bitumen state."

------------------------
Project opponents have said that diluted bitumen sinks in open water and is therefore next to impossible to clean-up. This isn’t true and there is no evidence on the record to support this claim.

jjuares wrote:

These quotes are from the article K referenced. "Some have suggested that diluted bitumen weathers rapidly, with diluent evaporating leaving bitumen behind to sink. This isn’t true. Diluted bitumen does not weather to a pure bitumen state." ------------------------ Project opponents have said that diluted bitumen sinks in open water and is therefore next to impossible to clean-up. This isn’t true and there is no evidence on the record to support this claim.

What the fuck to you think happened in Kalamazoo. We have a billion dollar cap on liability for a spill and Kalamazoo has already cost more than that because bitumen is so hard to clean up. Are the people of Alberta going to cover the costs of a spill? I doubt it.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

jjuares wrote:

However, when my well heeled BC relatives and friends complain based on one sided articles my sympathy evaporates. We have people with no science background posing as experts with definitive statements simply because they read a few articles from one side of the debate. I am no expert but I do know enough to at least examine the science dispassionately.

Your well heeled relatives are the minority in this province where the poverty rate exceeds the national average. Most of the people I know are opposed and they are not well heeled only well read unlike the people who just buy into the propaganda from the oil and gas industry. It is not NIMBYISM as you like to smear us with it is in fact self serving greed on behalf by the proponents and the useful idiots who want to see us build three pipelines so that ALL of the tar sands gunk can be burnt somewhere on the planet. Climate change is actually something i believe in although it is apparent that the main proponents of the pipelines love to deny it is really any problem at all.

I have read all the articles that I posted and even the industry ones have embedded information that disproves the sunny optimism of the oil industry. They merely claim that a good 80% or so can be recovered as long as the ocean conditions are calm. That may be good enough for you but it sure isn't for me.

I don't know how much of an idiot you are but you are definitely useful to the oil and gas industry. Even on a progressive board their anti-environmental talking points get repeated.  Are you also well heeled like your relatives? Do you own a lot of oil and gas stocks?

Well heeled  NIMBYISM is how you described the opposition to the pipeline. I oppose the pipeline so ergo you called me a well heeled NIMBY. Sorry if you only like to dish it out but you can't stand it when other people reply in kind.

"It is quite hilarious to have people concerned about pipelines and tankers and not quite seem to understand how imported oil gets to Canada. Hint, it is not carried by humingbirds in their little beaks."

"That's Okay, but to simply say that any product can not move through a province because it poses a risk is to move to an extreme NIMBY position."

I actually say what I mean you merely take sideswipes and pretend you are playing nice. That is what was done to Iksomos over and over again.  G+Fu

First don't answer any of the information in the articles but only post alternative fact articles from the corporate media and then call people in BC extreme NIMBY's. You have in this conversation implied that I only read one side so I presumed that you were looking in the mirror when you made that statement. In this thread and others you have not acknowledged that  there is any environmental issues and just keep answering with oil industry talking points. If you had a more nuanced view I would have responded to you differently. I take exception to people telling me I don't read enough and form my opinions based on NIMBYISM.

You won't bully me off this board although many days I wonder about it since it has become so fucking center right in its focus.

..we have to alter how we live. as more people understand this the more people stand up to say  yes to change. this is not rhetoric. we see uprising everywhere theses days. we  are in crisis with democracy. global corporations are/have been swooping down on us armed with their trade deals. armed with the federal government as crooked as the last one.

..and now the industry has captured the alberta government no matter who gets in. this is a political reality. the alberta government is not what those who went to marches last sat want. the pipelines means an expansion of the tarsands. there are no safe pipelines and real accidents are not just a statistic they are disasters. we got a sneak peek  with the tug sinking. then there’s that ecological disaster of the tarsands project. like expanding it is the solution to any of our problems. the benefits if they will come in bc under a lib gov will not go to better our lives they will be spent by governments who are captured. they will continue with austerity, to that there is no doubt in my mind.

..any real solution needs to be found in the resistance to both put pressure on all governments and create solutions because no one on the govermental political board is doing that. they just point to some mythical place down the road and that we will understand then that they were right. justifying pipelines is directly connected to state repression. this is how it will be. we can see that all around us. we don't have blinders. we have struggles in play with the indigenous folk/movements. issue like colonization and undrip. that struggle is directly connected to the pipelines. this not hidden somewhere in the background..this is front and center. it needs to be addressed.

Martin N. wrote:

Considering that the global population is supported because fossil fuels allow for the production of sufficient food to feed it and that only Canada, the US and Australia can export a surplus on a sustainable basis, how does the social justice movement view food shortages in a global context?

So Martin tell me what percentage of the tar sands gunk can we dig up and export in your opinion? Do you not believe in climate change and the effect of fossil fuels? Where is the social justice in places that are low lying with millions of people?

Quote:

As the world’s top scientists meet in Yokohama, Japan, this week, at the top of the agenda is the prediction that global sea levels could rise more than three feet by 2100. Higher seas and warmer weather will cause profound changes.

Climate scientists have concluded that widespread burning of fossil fuels is releasing heat-trapping gases that are warming the planet. While this will produce a host of effects, the most worrisome may be the melting of much of the earth’s ice, which is likely to raise sea levels and flood coastal regions.

Such a rise will be uneven because of gravitational effects and human intervention, so predicting its outcome in any one place is difficult. But island nations like the Maldives, Kiribati and Fiji may lose much of their land area, and millions of Bangladeshis will be displaced.

“There are a lot of places in the world at risk from rising sea levels, but Bangladesh is at the top of everybody’s list,” said Rafael Reuveny, a professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University at Bloomington. “And the world is not ready to cope with the problems.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/world/asia/facing-rising-seas-banglad...

Here's another interesting read from this week. Climate change deniers of course don't believe that there is any connection, do you think that our exporting of the tar sands will affect the people of Bangladesh?

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/20/bangladesh-st...

epaulo13 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Considering that the global population is supported because fossil fuels allow for the production of sufficient food to feed it and that only Canada, the US and Australia can export a surplus on a sustainable basis, how does the social justice movement view food shortages in a global context?

..your speaking of a sister struggle. we are many around the world. global corporate extraction is very much a part of food shotage crisis. it's not that the corporations invented oil or any other resource..it's just that they want to control it. we can do just as well at a local level. we have already the tools to begin transition for ages it the political will/coporate dominance that have prevented it. .

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Considering that the global population is supported because fossil fuels allow for the production of sufficient food to feed it and that only Canada, the US and Australia can export a surplus on a sustainable basis, how does the social justice movement view food shortages in a global context?

So Martin tell me what percentage of the tar sands gunk can we dig up and export in your opinion? Do you not believe in climate change and the effect of fossil fuels? Where is the social justice in places that are low lying with millions of people?

Quote:

As the world’s top scientists meet in Yokohama, Japan, this week, at the top of the agenda is the prediction that global sea levels could rise more than three feet by 2100. Higher seas and warmer weather will cause profound changes.

Climate scientists have concluded that widespread burning of fossil fuels is releasing heat-trapping gases that are warming the planet. While this will produce a host of effects, the most worrisome may be the melting of much of the earth’s ice, which is likely to raise sea levels and flood coastal regions.

Such a rise will be uneven because of gravitational effects and human intervention, so predicting its outcome in any one place is difficult. But island nations like the Maldives, Kiribati and Fiji may lose much of their land area, and millions of Bangladeshis will be displaced.

“There are a lot of places in the world at risk from rising sea levels, but Bangladesh is at the top of everybody’s list,” said Rafael Reuveny, a professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University at Bloomington. “And the world is not ready to cope with the problems.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/world/asia/facing-rising-seas-banglad...

Here's another interesting read from this week. Climate change deniers of course don't believe that there is any connection, do you think that our exporting of the tar sands will affect the people of Bangladesh?

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/20/bangladesh-st...

Peace Valley’s “extraordinary” farmland could feed a million people, agrologists tell Site C Dam review

A pair of highly-respected agricultural experts made a compelling case this week for sparing some of BC’s best farmland from a proposed dam on the Peace River. Together, veteran agrologist Wendy Holm and soil scientist Evelyn Wolterson argued that BC Hydro’s error-ridden study of the flood zone for the $10 billion proposed Site C Dam missed the unique soil and climate values that would enable this land to feed up to a million people – were the focus to shift from hydropower to farming.

Conversely, if a third dam on the Peace were built, it would create the single largest loss of land in the 40-year history of the province’s Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) – drowning or severely impacting over 30,000 acres of largely exceptional land.

quote:

Over 30,000 acres to be flooded or impacted

In all, the project would impact 31,528 acres of class 1-7 farmland, roughly half of which lies “within the project’s flood, stability and landslide-generated wave impact lines,” notes Holm’s report to the panel. The other half will be permanently lost beneath the reservoir and access roads. Of the total land impacted and compromised, over 8,300 acres  are class 1 and 2 soils – making it some the best farmland in the country.

Martin N. wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

Peace Valley’s “extraordinary” farmland could feed a million people, agrologists tell Site C Dam review

A pair of highly-respected agricultural experts made a compelling case this week for sparing some of BC’s best farmland from a proposed dam on the Peace River. Together, veteran agrologist Wendy Holm and soil scientist Evelyn Wolterson argued that BC Hydro’s error-ridden study of the flood zone for the $10 billion proposed Site C Dam missed the unique soil and climate values that would enable this land to feed up to a million people – were the focus to shift from hydropower to farming.

Conversely, if a third dam on the Peace were built, it would create the single largest loss of land in the 40-year history of the province’s Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) – drowning or severely impacting over 30,000 acres of largely exceptional land.

quote:

Over 30,000 acres to be flooded or impacted

In all, the project would impact 31,528 acres of class 1-7 farmland, roughly half of which lies “within the project’s flood, stability and landslide-generated wave impact lines,” notes Holm’s report to the panel. The other half will be permanently lost beneath the reservoir and access roads. Of the total land impacted and compromised, over 8,300 acres  are class 1 and 2 soils – making it some the best farmland in the country.

Again, the reservoir size is 5400 hectares. There are two dams upstream that mitigate flooding with a minimum authorized flow of 10,000 cm/s. The rest of the lands are minimally impacted during construction. My question remains: if these lands are so valuable to agriculture, why has nothing ever been done to utilize them? I repeat that there are a zillion hectares of farmland in the Peace and 5400 will not be missed

..similar discussions has already taken place in the site c thread. but just to bring it back to this thread gas & oil has been the driving force in the peace valley for a long time. this creates a narrow focus..a tunnel vision. corporations, governments and even many businesses in the area want a piece of the action because there’s money to be made not by all but by some. at the same time a drought is going on south of us where much of our food comes from. this results in higher and higher prices as well as threatens our food security yet the focus is on short term money. i understand what is going on. people understand what is going on.

..the light comes from the indigenous folk, the farmers, the ranchers and a lot of other people who live in the area. they have plans for the land. the whole province can benefit from these plans. and there is the rub.  this position for the most part applies to pipelines, tankers and the tarsands. 

..there the insults again. i'll say it again i won't engage.

..let me be more clear then. i have what i believe is a strong political position. i lay my case out. you don’t address it you try and pick it apart. i add more to my position. and your response is an attack. this is not debate. this is bully like macho shit.

epaulo13 wrote:

..let me be more clear then. i have what i believe is a strong political position. i lay my case out. you don’t address it you try and pick it apart. i add more to my position. and your response is an attack. this is not debate. this is bully like macho shit.

There is no possible way that the system we have now could drastically collapse. That is if one wants to deny climate change effects. I take it that you don't believe in the climate change data either.

Quote:

Pretty much every state west of the Rockies has been facing a water shortage of one kind or another in recent years.  California's is a severe, but relatively short-term, drought. But the Colorado River basin — which provides critical water supplies for seven states including California — is the victim of a slower-burning catastrophe entering its 16th year. Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona and California all share water from the Colorado River, a hugely important water resource that sustains 40 million people in those states, supports 15 percent of the nation's food supply, and fills two of largest water reserves in the country.

The severe shortages of rain and snowfall have hurt California's $46 billion agricultural industry and helped raise national awareness of the longer-term shortages that are affecting the entire Colorado River basin. But while the two problems have commonalities and have some effect on one another, they're not exactly the same thing.

https://www.propublica.org/article/california-drought-colorado-river-wat...

Martin N. wrote:

It is disingenuous to portray me as a 'denier' by manipulating semantics although I've always entertained the perception of myself as a Jamaican Alfred E Neumann. Don't worry, be happy.!....... What I doubt is the 'sky is falling' worst case scenarios promoted by the whackadoodles. Human enginuity and advancing technology will deal with it and the earth has tremendous capacity to heal itself.

Those "whackadoodles" are scientists. Your doubt that we have a critical problem flies in the face of the available evidence. The planet is in trouble. However, while humans are capable of great things, greed and denial-for-profit will prevent us from applying the resources we have to fixing the problem. That is if it is not already too late.

You don't want to be called a climate change denier but in fact this statement you have just made makes you just one more varient of that: a denier of the seriousness and urgency of the problem. Your opinion is not founded on anything more than the ravings of the mad orange king. It is no less dangerous. Your denial of the problem is one of the types of denials that will destroy the planet. You may think that it is more of a procrastination (we can do it later so let's roll back over to sleep) as opposed to saying there is an emerging catastrophe and we need to address it.

For the supposed intelligence of humans, we are able to see what is coming but are too arrogant about our abilities to recognize the need to take urgent action until it is too late.

Sorry, you are part of the problem not the solution. You are only a shade different than the mad orange king.