Trudeau: Liberals Inherited 'Mistrust' From Previous Tory Government On Pipelines
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/01/17/liberals-inherited-mistrust-from...
"Trudeau: Liberals Inherited 'Mistrust' From Previous Tory AND LIBERAL Governments along with his already broken committments."
I fixed it.
You are welcome
It is the dissemination of weasel words that resemble facts that I take issue with.
lol no. it's the dissemination of others you allege to be using weasel words not your own you take exception too.
the whole sentence i quoted is one big weasel sentence on your part.
you don't indicate what words you believe are weasel. broad brushingly you dismiss everyone's words exept your own as being not facts.
It is the dissemination of weasel words that resemble facts that I take issue with.lol no. it's the dissemination of others you allege to be using weasel words not your own you take exception too.
the whole sentence i quoted is one big weasel sentence on your part.
you don't indicate what words you believe are weasel. broad brushingly you dismiss everyone's words exept your own as being not facts.
Impact of pipelines on aboriginal groups spills into courts
The merits of the individual legal challenges notwithstanding, it strikes me that there’s a larger issue here to be adjudicated by the courts.
When half of the First Nations in B.C. are impacted by an interprovincial resource development, does each one of them have a veto? With a project as extensive as this one, governments need to know when enough is enough.
http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vaughn-palmer-impact-of-oil-p...
Should social licence trump national interest?
http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/daphne-bramham-should-social-...
Pipeline approved but Chilliwack water activists fighting for route change
Should social licence trump national interest?
http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/daphne-bramham-should-social-...
Well I remember the NEP which was a program that was in the national interest but Albertans hated it. The Albertan response was not we'll suck it up for the good of the country. Their answer was let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark.
Alberta can do whatever it wants with its bitumen except send it through my Salish Sea. They can refine it and turn it into real oil like they already do in Lloydminster. Hell if its real oil and not toxic sludge they might even be able to get social license to expand the pipeline.
Alberta can do whatever it wants with its bitumen except send it through my Salish Sea.
Krop, I am going to play Devil's Advocate here. Did you realize that the current KM pipeline already transports bitumen? As a matter of fact, back in 2012, 39% of the KM throughput was bitumen. Back then.
Moreover, you know all of those driveways, municipal roads, and provincial highways from Victoria right up to Port McNeill on Vancouver Island? All paved with "asphalt". The asphalt "glue" is bitumen. Bitumen for Vancouver Island asphalt is transported across Georgia Strait, via barge, from Metro Vancouver. Has been for many, many decades.
Not sayng that I agree with same. But how do you square those circles?
Alberta can do whatever it wants with its bitumen except send it through my Salish Sea.
Krop, I am going to play Devil's Advocate here. Did you realize that the current KM pipeline already transports bitumen? As a matter of fact, back in 2012, 39% of the KM throughput was bitumen. Back then.
Moreover, you know all of those driveways, municipal roads, and provincial highways from Victoria right up to Port McNeill on Vancouver Island? All paved with "asphalt". The asphalt "glue" is bitumen. Bitumen for Vancouver Island asphalt is transported across Georgia Strait, via barge, from Metro Vancouver. Has been for many, many decades.
Not sayng that I agree with same. But how do you square those circles?
My statement above is my opening offer. I'm willing to discuss other options with that as a startoing point. The fact that we are shipping bitumen out of Burnaby already when there is NO and I mean NO cleanup response in place that can deal with the substance shows just how little democratic control there is. The fact that they were allowed to start pumping bitumen instead of crude oil is merely another example of improper oversight of the oil and gas industry. The regulators are industry people not unbiased citizens. A barge transiting from the Fraser to Van Isle is far safer than other methods of transport as long as we have good cabotage laws that require the tugs to be staffed by Canadian trained and certified crews. On this coast barges are used for most toxic substances because they are are as safe as it gets out on the water. What is really insidious is the push to gut our cabotage and pilotage rules at the same time as they want to triple the traffic.
Here are a few facts and history of the line and players in the game. Frankly I have a hard time with the idea that a sleazy billionaires interest has been redefined as a national interest.
What is the Kinder Morgan Pipeline?
The Kinder Morgan Pipeline runs from Edmonton to the Westridge Marine terminal in Burnaby. At the terminal, tankers are loaded with oil that they then carry through the First and Second Narrows, Vancouver Harbour, English Bay, Georgia Strait, the active channels of the Southern Gulf Islands, Haro Strait and the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
The Kinder Morgan pipeline is also known as the Trans Mountain pipeline, and has serviced BC with oil and natural gas since it was built in 1953. In 2005, the pipeline was bought by Kinder Morgan, Inc. Until recently, the pipeline has typically carried conventional crude oil. But Kinder Morgan has increasingly been using it to transport diluted bitumen from the tar sands, which is more corrosive than regular oil.
Kinder Morgan also wants to increase the amount of oil that is being transported. Kinder Morgan is proposing to expand the pipeline by twinning the existing Trans Mountain pipeline. This would increase the amount of oil being transported from 300,000 to 890,000 barrels per day. More oil being transported to the Burrard Inlet means more tanker traffic to transport the oil to foreign markets.
Kinder Morgan’s plan is to convert the Burrard Inlet into a major tar sands oil export facility.
Who is Kinder Morgan?
Kinder Morgan is the biggest pipeline company in the United States. Richard Kinder and Bill Morgan are ex-Enron Executives. Enron is the corporation that famously swindled its own shareholders out of approximately 11 billion dollars. The Wall Street Journal called Richard Kinder the "luckiest ex-Enron employee". His predecessor Jeffrey Skilling is currently in prison. Both men are now billionaires. Richard Kinder is the 110th richest man alive with a net worth of $8.2 billion.
US regulators have documented over thirty significant accidents and violations in the country associated with Kinder Morgan's operations. Kinder Morgan pipelines have exploded causing disasters and death. They have paid out millions of dollars in fines and settlements.
What is crude oil?
Crude oil is unprocessed oil found underground—in this case, in the Alberta tar sands. It is thicker and heavier then refined gas products, so it does not float and does not easily evaporate. Crude oil is toxic to marine life: The polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in crude oil are very difficult to clean up and last for decades in water, on beaches, in sediment, and affects the entire marine environment.
What is diluted bitumen?
While crude oil can be devastating to environments when spilled, diluted bitumen from the tar sands is even more difficult to clean up. When mined, tar sands bitumen is so heavy and thick that it can only travel through pipelines when combined with chemical diluents, including benzene (a human carcinogen). As officials discovered after the 2010 Enbridge pipeline spill in Kalamazoo, cleaning up diluted bitumen comes with a brand new set of challenges. When spilled in waterways, the heavy bitumen sinks to the bottom, so conventional clean-up techniques had little effect. At the same time, the chemical diluents such as benzene evaporate and cause toxic clouds in the air.
To learn more about the Kalamazoo spill, click here.
How big are the oil tankers that would pass through coastal waters?
The Aframax tankers proposed to serve the Kinder Morgan pipeline are approximately 245m long. This is longer than Vancouver’s tallest building (the Shangri La) at 200m, and almost 100m longer than a BC Spirit of Vancouver Island ferry at 167m.
What are the chances of an oil spill?
Oil leaks and spills occur regularly. They can and have occurred either along pipeline routes, or from shipping accidents once the oil is on the tanker. Along the pipeline route we could expect about 800 barrels a year to leak a little bit at a time, just from normal operational use. The chances of a tanker leaking or spilling goes up the more tankers there are passing through the Inlet.
According to The Mariners Group, there were 3.2 major oil spills per year over the last 37 years worldwide. However, over the last ten years, that number has climbed to 8.6 major oil spills per year, and in the last five years, soared to 14.8 major oil spills each year.
https://www.wildernesscommittee.org/frequently_asked_questions_regarding...
Alberta can do whatever it wants with its bitumen except send it through my Salish Sea.
Krop, I am going to play Devil's Advocate here. Did you realize that the current KM pipeline already transports bitumen? As a matter of fact, back in 2012, 39% of the KM throughput was bitumen. Back then.
Moreover, you know all of those driveways, municipal roads, and provincial highways from Victoria right up to Port McNeill on Vancouver Island? All paved with "asphalt". The asphalt "glue" is bitumen. Bitumen for Vancouver Island asphalt is transported across Georgia Strait, via barge, from Metro Vancouver. Has been for many, many decades.
Not sayng that I agree with same. But how do you square those circles?
Just wondering -- what is the difference in volume. As I understand it volume is the multiplier of risk. So a rtelatively small amount of the product for driveways would not compare with a large amount for export processing.
That's a good point about cabotage. At present, Transport Canada has very good regulations for Canadian vessels but international shipping falls under SOLAS, which Canada is a signatory to. Another point is that Alaska traffic is substantial, carrying who know what..... The concern is not lack of regulation but lack of protection. CG vessels rarely leave the dock. Spill protection equipment was removed from BC and moved to the east coast and Kits CG closed (now reopened). Trudeau is chirping about $1.5 billion for spill mitigation but I'll believe it when the ships and spill kits are onsite, agreements and funding complete for FN first responder teams and a realistic operating budget established........Given government weaselry, other priorities (read east coast politicking) will lick up available funding while Trudeau announces the same funding over and over again until the announcements add up to $1.5 billion while the cash remains far less.
That's a good point about cabotage. At present, Transport Canada has very good regulations for Canadian vessels but international shipping falls under SOLAS, which Canada is a signatory to.
Given that our ports are among the safest in the world opening them up to be only covered by the same regulations as exist in other places with far worse safety records is mindless.
Alberta can do whatever it wants with its bitumen except send it through my Salish Sea.
Krop, I am going to play Devil's Advocate here. Did you realize that the current KM pipeline already transports bitumen? As a matter of fact, back in 2012, 39% of the KM throughput was bitumen. Back then.
Moreover, you know all of those driveways, municipal roads, and provincial highways from Victoria right up to Port McNeill on Vancouver Island? All paved with "asphalt". The asphalt "glue" is bitumen. Bitumen for Vancouver Island asphalt is transported across Georgia Strait, via barge, from Metro Vancouver. Has been for many, many decades.
Not sayng that I agree with same. But how do you square those circles?
Just wondering -- what is the difference in volume. As I understand it volume is the multiplier of risk. So a rtelatively small amount of the product for driveways would not compare with a large amount for export processing.
Trudeau government retreats from key promise to First Nations
The Trudeau government is retreating from a key promise to be more up front with indigenous groups who are taking it to court.
The promise would have required the government to publish legal opinions it received regarding indigenous and treaty rights, and could directly affect the dynamics of court challenges for major energy projects such as Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain expansion and Enbridge’s Line 3 replacement pipeline projects, as well as B.C.’s Site C hydroelectric dam.
This pledge was among 94 calls to action made by Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 2015 following its investigation into the country’s infamous residential schools program. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals, while in opposition, promised to implement all of these recommendations once in government as part of a commitment to improve Canada's relations with indigenous people....
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tears up after speaking about the Truth and Reconciliation commission's final report on Dec. 15, 2015. Photo by Canadian Press
"We're going to stand up for our water," says B.C. chief challenging pipeline approval
The Coldwater Indian Band south of Merritt, B.C. has added its name to a chorus of groups challenging federal approval of the controversial Trans Mountain expansion in court, alleging that the pipeline project could do irreparable damage to its only viable source of drinking water.
Kinder Morgan's hotly-debated pipeline proposal may have approval from federal and provincial governments, but a flurry of recent lawsuits from First Nations and environmental organizations, including the Coldwater, could stall the planned start of construction in September 2017.
The pipeline expansion would skirt the edges of the First Nation's territory in B.C.'s Coldwater Valley, near an underground aquifer that provides well water to the 856 residents of the small agricultural community.
"We want to make it clear that we’re going to stand up for our water,” Coldwater Chief Lee Spahan told National Observer on Tuesday. “My band’s situation is just like what the Standing Rock Sioux were facing — our primary source of drinking water is under threat and there is no need for it. Coldwater Chief and Council are gravely disappointed by the Crown’s failure to take our concerns seriously.”
quote:
The existing Trans Mountain pipeline, said the First Nation's lawyer Matthew Kirchner, already runs through Coldwater's traditional territory, and the band does not want a second pipeline nearby, threatening to spill heavy oil into the aquifer that supplies local drinking water. In a November 2016 letter to Coldwater, he said the federal government's consultation lead recognized that if hydrocarbons were accidentally discharged from the pipeline, the contamination to the aquifer could be "irreversible."
..for several years now, in bc, there has been collaborations between settler indigenous folk re: extraction and pipelines. one form is the raising of money to fund indigenous legal action. northern gateway is a very successful example. well a new fund raising project started re the kinder morgan pipeline. already it has raised $56,450 and the goal is $500,000.
..i'm not a fundraiser and my only purpose for posting this is to show the substantial collaborative activity happening at a grassroots level.
Regular people, businesses, and community groups are standing with First Nations to fund their legal cases.
Stopping Kinder Morgan, together
Kinder Morgan's pipeline and tanker project poses unacceptable risks.
It must never be built, and First Nations are going to court to stop it.
..recent pics from the the san juan islands in washington.
..from canada's gabriola island
It's not linear. Risk arbitrage and many other factors are involved including the chance of a spill, the amount spilled, emergency services response time and risk to life......This is the major concern with both government and industry - they will base their decisions on whether it is cheaper to pay for protection from risk or cheaper to wing it and pay the costs of realized risk if it occurs. The optimal solution for those at risk is a "world class" protection level based on need, not cost.Alberta can do whatever it wants with its bitumen except send it through my Salish Sea.
Krop, I am going to play Devil's Advocate here. Did you realize that the current KM pipeline already transports bitumen? As a matter of fact, back in 2012, 39% of the KM throughput was bitumen. Back then.
Moreover, you know all of those driveways, municipal roads, and provincial highways from Victoria right up to Port McNeill on Vancouver Island? All paved with "asphalt". The asphalt "glue" is bitumen. Bitumen for Vancouver Island asphalt is transported across Georgia Strait, via barge, from Metro Vancouver. Has been for many, many decades.
Not sayng that I agree with same. But how do you square those circles?
Just wondering -- what is the difference in volume. As I understand it volume is the multiplier of risk. So a rtelatively small amount of the product for driveways would not compare with a large amount for export processing.
I beg to differ although I would not use the word linear.
If all is equal and a given tanker has a risk of o.oo1 going from a port and you have 500 tankers the risk is multiplied 500 times. So your risk of an event is now 0.5. Multiply the tanker traffic by ten and risk of incidents rise to 5%. This is why environmentalists look both at potential loss (if it happens) and increasing risk (the potenital for the loss of happening) which is proportional to volume. there are three key figures here and this is common to all risk:
What is at stake -- what could be damaged and cost of that.
The chance of it happening per unit of activity.
The number of units of activity.
This is how all risk is assesed.
Now with higher volume there may be some mitigation by locating response units, improving quality but what you are doing is reducing the risk for each volume unit so that when you multiply that risk by the volume your chnce of loss is calculated
The you say other factors including chance of a spill -- that's risk. And you calculate volume exposure x risk.
All other issues you talk about are related to risk and risk is multiplied by volume (exposure) that is exactly the way it works.
Cost benefit calculation is another matter and has nothing to do with this. It is related to economies of scale but the amount you put through at a particular risk multiplies the risk exposure. This is exactly the point that has been made by environmentalists with ever single expansion of a risky behaviour.
I raised all this becuase you referred to a bahviour that was already being done in a much more limited way. If you change nothing but send twice as much you just doubled your risk of an event. This is not that hard when you think about it.
"I raised all this becuase you referred to a bahviour that was already being done in a much more limited way. If you change nothing but send twice as much you just doubled your risk of an event. This is not that hard when you think about it."
>
So, if you have 60 tankers per year for 60 years and 500 per year for 40 years with no spills, adding 300 more tankers will only increase the risk from nearly zero to slightly above zero. Without taking into account tractor tugs and pilots.
"I raised all this becuase you referred to a bahviour that was already being done in a much more limited way. If you change nothing but send twice as much you just doubled your risk of an event. This is not that hard when you think about it." .
So, if you have 60 tankers per year for 60 years and 500 per year for 40 years with no spills, adding 300 more tankers will only increase the risk from nearly zero to slightly above zero. Without taking into account tractor tugs and pilots.
That's a strange numbers game that is really not helpful in understanding what is at risk and why. First of all there are various risks involved. The risk from tankers spilling their oil from an accident are low if you use our tugs. The risk from a pipeline rupturing in an urban area and thus emitting toxic fumes and damaging the inlet where it spills into is almost a certainty over the long term. Its already happened once since Kinder Morgan bought out the public company. The risk from the introduction of tankers that are twice the size and transiting almost everyday to the ocean life including our resident orcas is very high.
The risk of this negatively impacting the marine ecology of the Burrard Inlet over the lifetime of the pipeline is unacceptable. The risk to the ocean lifeforms is high and unacceptable. The tourist industry in the Salish Sea depends on a natural environment with plenty of ocean creatures to enjoy watching. The risk of a tanker accident happening is the lowest of the three main ones. However it would be catastrophic event that would destroy the Inlet's ecology and threaten hundreds of thousands of peoples health from the toxic cloud that would arise over the water in the Inlet.
I would be happy to make a 50/50 odds bet if the down side was a slap on the wrist and the up side was an ice cream cone. If the downside of a risk was permanent impairment of my ability to make a living the potential reward would have to be quite high.
I would be happy to make a 50/50 odds bet if the down side was a slap on the wrist and the up side was an ice cream cone. If the downside of a risk was permanent impairment of my ability to make a living the potential reward would have to be quite high before I would take the risk. The risks for the people who live along the pipeline and the Burrard Inlet and Salish Sea are higher than any possible benefit they could derive from it. Our local politicians understand what their cities will have to risk and that is why they are saying no.
"I raised all this becuase you referred to a bahviour that was already being done in a much more limited way. If you change nothing but send twice as much you just doubled your risk of an event. This is not that hard when you think about it." .Well of course this is a simplistic way of thinking about this issue and obviously with serious problems in its construct. Sometimes increased volume can present extra problems. An easy example of this would be the likelihood of collisions. The first two hundred tankers going through a strait ( in a given period of time) may present a neglibile risk of collision. However, if you double the number of tankers you now may have a serious risk of collision. So the second group of tankers doesn't simply double the risk, it adds more than that. There are other factors which may be similarly affected such as crew quality and experience. In summary the volume in of itself can adjust risk factors so they don't remain the same. This is a variation of the " threshold effect".
I do not disagree with this point at all -- that risk may increase more in proportion than volume -- that is becuase all things are not equal you know have congestion.
My point was that if you double then you double the risk -- but you could more than double it if you ahve a point of congection. But it would not be less unless there was some kind of mitigation.
If you look at the original context of my post you can see that I was trying not to overcomplicate a principle that was being missed.
I would be happy to make a 50/50 odds bet if the down side was a slap on the wrist and the up side was an ice cream cone. If the downside of a risk was permanent impairment of my ability to make a living the potential reward would have to be quite high before I would take the risk. The risks for the people who live along the pipeline and the Burrard Inlet and Salish Sea are higher than any possible benefit they could derive from it. Our local politicians understand what their cities will have to risk and that is why they are saying no.
Good points but I think it is also worth noting that decisions do not always relate to risks.
For example there are other communities who have apporved what is actually a catastrophic risk becuase they felt that by not approving it the project would go ahead and they would be shut out and have even less influence over risk management, information and mitigation. As well, some communities fet that they were simply to desperate to not take an opportunity even though the risk was so great. This is a common feature to cooperation with imperialistic powers that control any possible hope while imposing unacceptable risk. In other words your community was able to stand up against the proposal but that does not mean that other communities did not also think the risk was unreasonable but accepted it either to be not left out of the process or becuase there was simply no hope for economic benefits except through unreasonable risk
"I raised all this becuase you referred to a bahviour that was already being done in a much more limited way. If you change nothing but send twice as much you just doubled your risk of an event. This is not that hard when you think about it." .Well of course this is a simplistic way of thinking about this issue and obviously with serious problems in its construct. Sometimes increased volume can present extra problems. An easy example of this would be the likelihood of collisions. The first two hundred tankers going through a strait ( in a given period of time) may present a neglibile risk of collision. However, if you double the number of tankers you now may have a serious risk of collision. So the second group of tankers doesn't simply double the risk, it adds more than that. There are other factors which may be similarly affected such as crew quality and experience. In summary the volume in of itself can adjust risk factors so they don't remain the same. This is a variation of the " threshold effect".I do not disagree with this point at all -- that risk may increase more in proportion than volume -- that is becuase all things are not equal you know have congestion.
My point was that if you double then you double the risk -- but you could more than double it if you ahve a point of congection. But it would not be less unless there was some kind of mitigation.
If you look at the original context of my post you can see that I was trying not to overcomplicate a principle that was being missed.
The risk from a pipeline rupturing in an urban area and thus emitting toxic fumes and damaging the inlet where it spills into is almost a certainty over the long term.----
...one ought to check out the Inlet, with the Tsleil Waututh community on its west bank, where there are already no fish...just smokestacks on the east side already pouring their toxic fumes.........has anyone asked the Tsleil Waututh for permission to destroy their way of life.......
does anyone remember the Royal Proclamation of 1763 the basis of the article 24 of our constitution on Indigenous rights.......
of course who pays any attention to such legal niceties...after all in the age of neoliberalism.......might is right!
More good news for the Kinder Morgan Pipeline Project
..a pdf file that shows the way towards a better way to treat the land, water and food resources. we have at our disposal options and opportunities to live in harmony with nature.
quote:
Executive Summary
The Burrard Inlet Action Plan: A Tsleil-Waututh Perspective (“Action Plan”) is a founding guidance document for a new science-based, First Nations-led initiative to improve the health of Burrard Inlet by 2025. The purpose of the Action Plan is to:
• Summarize available scientific knowledge about Burrard Inlet and assess status and trends in the ecosystem for key topics of interest;
• Identify priority issues that continue to contribute to degradation or limit recovery;
• Identify important knowledge gaps and research needs;
• Foster development of a shared vision for environmental stewardship; and
• Identify strategic near-term actions that could be taken to improve the health and integrity of Burrard Inlet by 2025.
quote:
Status and Trends in the Burrard Inlet Ecosystem
An assessment of status and trends in the Burrard Inlet ecosystem based on existing scientific information and traditional knowledge had the following key findings:
• Long-term changes in physical water quality parameters, such as water temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and pH are of concern. The extent to which changes observed to date are natural or human-caused is largely unknown. Climate change is expected to further impact physical water quality, with a wide variety of potential ecological impacts.
• Polluted water and contaminated sediments are broadly impacting environmental quality, affecting key species and food webs, and limiting human uses of Burrard Inlet. Primary contaminants of concern include pathogens, heavy metals, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and legacy persistent organic pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). Levels of many contaminants still regularly exceed water quality objectives.
• Potential sources of contamination are diverse and not well characterized for most pollutants. Major sources of pollution include authorized industrial discharges, the Lions Gate Wastewater Treatment Plant, occasional combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows, urban and industrial stormwater runoff, contaminated sites, on-site sewage disposal, and spills of oil, fuel, and other hazardous substances.
• Over 93% of the historic extent of estuaries in Burrard Inlet has been lost due to development. Localized losses of other near shore habitats such as eelgrass beds, kelp forests, and productive beaches have also been observed, although these declines and their causes are not well-documented.
• Approximately half of Burrard Inlet’s shorelines have been altered and 53 km of natural shoreline lost. Shoreline alteration is highest in the Inner Harbour (90%) and lowest in Indian Arm (exact percentage not known). Shoreline alteration and hardening has had negative impacts on nearshore habitats and key species, and impacted circulation and sediment transport....
Canadians should not pay for BC's bad behaviour
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canadians-shouldnt-pay-for-bcs-...
Yes, there is a possibility even that some economy of scale might be a mitigating factor and the risk would not double. I see this as unlikely. More likely the sytem gets strained or even overwhelmed and the risk goes up exponentially. It isn't just congestion and collision either, it is safety monitoring, crew quality all those things which contribute to accidents caused by " human error" as they say in the airline industry."I raised all this becuase you referred to a bahviour that was already being done in a much more limited way. If you change nothing but send twice as much you just doubled your risk of an event. This is not that hard when you think about it." .Well of course this is a simplistic way of thinking about this issue and obviously with serious problems in its construct. Sometimes increased volume can present extra problems. An easy example of this would be the likelihood of collisions. The first two hundred tankers going through a strait ( in a given period of time) may present a neglibile risk of collision. However, if you double the number of tankers you now may have a serious risk of collision. So the second group of tankers doesn't simply double the risk, it adds more than that. There are other factors which may be similarly affected such as crew quality and experience. In summary the volume in of itself can adjust risk factors so they don't remain the same. This is a variation of the " threshold effect".I do not disagree with this point at all -- that risk may increase more in proportion than volume -- that is becuase all things are not equal you know have congestion.
My point was that if you double then you double the risk -- but you could more than double it if you ahve a point of congection. But it would not be less unless there was some kind of mitigation.
If you look at the original context of my post you can see that I was trying not to overcomplicate a principle that was being missed.
I agree with that -- there may be small mitigating factors but the bigger things will create exponential increase in danger.
We entered this becuase I objected to the comment to the effect that a little has already been done without disaster so more cannot be a problem.
Above is a link to the NEB Transmountain Expansion.
I would be happy to make a 50/50 odds bet if the down side was a slap on the wrist and the up side was an ice cream cone. If the downside of a risk was permanent impairment of my ability to make a living the potential reward would have to be quite high before I would take the risk. The risks for the people who live along the pipeline and the Burrard Inlet and Salish Sea are higher than any possible benefit they could derive from it. Our local politicians understand what their cities will have to risk and that is why they are saying no.
Good points but I think it is also worth noting that decisions do not always relate to risks.
For example there are other communities who have apporved what is actually a catastrophic risk becuase they felt that by not approving it the project would go ahead and they would be shut out and have even less influence over risk management, information and mitigation. As well, some communities fet that they were simply to desperate to not take an opportunity even though the risk was so great. This is a common feature to cooperation with imperialistic powers that control any possible hope while imposing unacceptable risk. In other words your community was able to stand up against the proposal but that does not mean that other communities did not also think the risk was unreasonable but accepted it either to be not left out of the process or becuase there was simply no hope for economic benefits except through unreasonable risk
My point is I don't give flying fuck if other communities were bullied for various reasons into accepting the unacceptable. I presume you know that communities along the route were given incentives/bribes if they signed on to it and were told that if they didn't they wouldn't see a nickel of any benefit.
This project is wrong on every level and it will be built over the protests of the people who live here. But hell its only BC and the Harper years taught Eastern Canada that Western Canada means Calgary oil so us lotus landers on our fantasy islands are irrelevant and not the true West like Alberta.
In Canada we have the right to protest until told to stop. After that some activists will be arrested, persistent activists who refuse to stop will be jailed and likely some of them will be beaten up in the process.
In Canada we have the right to protest until told to stop. After that some activists will be arrested, persistent activists who refuse to stop will be jailed and likely some of them will be beaten up in the process.
...This pretty much sums it up...but the problem lies with the activists who refuse to learn from this.......doing the same tactic over and over again expecting different results is of course insanity...
know your enemy and their weapons! Figure out more effective strategy...when was the last time a movement came together to actually plan strategy?
of course I have some advantage here, working with people who`ve figured things out by murderous experience, developing more creative strategy that does work....
but of course part of such strategy involves the building of alternative movement...meaning noncooperation with the corporatocracy, movements from the base...but that means dedication and hard persistent work over the longer term
I would be happy to make a 50/50 odds bet if the down side was a slap on the wrist and the up side was an ice cream cone. If the downside of a risk was permanent impairment of my ability to make a living the potential reward would have to be quite high before I would take the risk. The risks for the people who live along the pipeline and the Burrard Inlet and Salish Sea are higher than any possible benefit they could derive from it. Our local politicians understand what their cities will have to risk and that is why they are saying no.
Good points but I think it is also worth noting that decisions do not always relate to risks.
For example there are other communities who have apporved what is actually a catastrophic risk becuase they felt that by not approving it the project would go ahead and they would be shut out and have even less influence over risk management, information and mitigation. As well, some communities fet that they were simply to desperate to not take an opportunity even though the risk was so great. This is a common feature to cooperation with imperialistic powers that control any possible hope while imposing unacceptable risk. In other words your community was able to stand up against the proposal but that does not mean that other communities did not also think the risk was unreasonable but accepted it either to be not left out of the process or becuase there was simply no hope for economic benefits except through unreasonable risk
My point is I don't give flying fuck if other communities were bullied for various reasons into accepting the unacceptable. I presume you know that communities along the route were given incentives/bribes if they signed on to it and were told that if they didn't they wouldn't see a nickel of any benefit.
This project is wrong on every level and it will be built over the protests of the people who live here. But hell its only BC and the Harper years taught Eastern Canada that Western Canada means Calgary oil so us lotus landers on our fantasy islands are irrelevant and not the true West like Alberta.
In Canada we have the right to protest until told to stop. After that some activists will be arrested, persistent activists who refuse to stop will be jailed and likely some of them will be beaten up in the process.
My point was that those on the route who agreed to it, do not necessarily believe in it -- they may have other reasons to go along with it. I am just saying that the support is somewhat exaggerated by this dynamic. I don't see how this point of view in any way contradicts yours-- ?
..but the problem lies with the activists who refuse to learn from this.......doing the same tactic over and over again expecting different results is of course insanity...
When we oppose things we do not do so only becuase we think our opposition is going to make a change. We do this to make sure we are not cooperating or seen to be supporting the status quo. People do things to record their opposition as well as change things. When you lose hope of making a change it does not mean that you will do nothing. You might just want to show people that not everyone agrees. I do not blame activists who feel disempowered for doing the only things they can do. Other people if they have an idea should do it as well and try to get support. In a lopsided power environment I would never blame activists who fight no-hope battles for it is better to do that than nothing at all.
..from dec/16
Honourable Christy Clark, Premier, [email protected]
Honourable Rich Coleman, Deputy Premier & Minister of Natural Gas Development & Minister Responsible for Housing, [email protected]
Honourable Mary Polak, Minister of Environment, [email protected]
Laurie Throness, MLA Chilliwack-Hope, [email protected]
John Martin, MLA Chilliwack, [email protected]
I am writing on behalf of the WaterWealth Project regarding the imminent Province of BC decision on Kinder Morgan's proposed Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project. WaterWealth does not support building new oil pipelines generally, such multi-generation infrastructure being contrary to our responsibilities to our children and future generations.
However regarding the Trans Mountain Expansion Project in particular we would bring your attention to a local concern in our home city of Chilliwack that remains unaddressed throughout the project approval processes to date, and which we believe makes it impossible for the project to meet the minimum conditions set out by your government to consider approval of heavy oil pipeline projects.
quote:
Further, under the heading "Terrestrial Protection and Spill Prevention" we find the objective:
"Objective: Canada becomes a world leader in terrestrial spill prevention, preparedness and response for pipelines transporting heavy oil or bitumen."
The first step in world leading spill prevention and preparedness is of course selection of a pipeline route that minimizes the risk of pipeline spill and minimizes risks in the event of pipeline spill. In Chilliwack the route currently planned for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project does the opposite.
Risk of pipeline spill is maximized by the presence of the Vedder Mountain Fault near where the pipeline route crosses the Vedder River, which in a zone of highest liquefaction potential according to Kinder Morgan's documents submitted in the National Energy Board (NEB) hearing. The Vedder Mountain Fault is one of four faults on the Trans Mountain route that was identified by Natural Resources Canada during the NEB hearing as being of specific concern. Compounding that concern is the proximity of the Sumas Fault to the Vedder Mountain Fault and the unknown risks of interaction between those two faults.
Risk in the event of pipeline spill is maximized by the Trans Mountain route crossing directly over the Sardis-Vedder Aquifer that is the City of Chilliwack's sole source of drinking water. The pipeline lies over the aquifer for approximately 13.5 kilometres. It passes within capture zones of city wells. Still over the aquifer and adjacent to the Vedder River the Trans Mountain route crosses two salmon enhancement areas--Peach Creek and Browne Creek Wetlands--that are of exceptional value to the community as places of recreation and to the local ecology and economy through their invaluable salmon habitat and its contribution to recreational and food fisheries. The salmon enhancement areas parallel the river on either side and are wooded areas that would make spill response access difficult. The pipeline route crosses the Vedder River a short distance up-river of Yarrow Waterworks wells and another jewel of the community, the Great Blue Heron Reserve....
..more from the letter.
quote:
There are of course also concerns about the existing Trans Mountain pipeline through this area. In 2012 the NEB ordered Kinder Morgan to conduct inline inspections (ILI) of the Trans Mountain Mainline. That work was under way when two leaks on the pipeline were discovered in June of 2013, near the Coquihalla Summit and about 40 kilometres east. ILI tools had missed those leaks. They were discovered by people on the ground. Following the discovery of the leaks the NEB ordered Kinder Morgan to reduce the operating pressure of the Trans Mountain system.
In a document EA-TM-2014-004 dated 14 March 2014 Kinder Morgan sought to lift the pressure restriction on the Hargreaves to Darfield section of the system, a section 274 kilometres long. On the sixth page of that document Kinder Morgan state that the ILI assessment of the Mainline will be “completed by the end of 2014”. Kinder Morgan also stated that following the discovery of the two 2013 leaks they asked their ILI vendors to re-analyze all of their data. As shown on a table on that page, the ILI analysis identified 119 features that met Kinder Morgan’s dig criteria in that Darfield to Hargreaves section. Averaged over those 274 km that gives one feature requiring excavation every 2.3 km.
This writer was among a group of Chilliwack residents who went to see the spill sites in 2013. We went expecting to see two spill sites, two excavations for repairs. To our surprise, but similar to the Hargreaves to Darfield section, we found many excavations and repairs to the pipeline in roughly seven km of the Coquihalla Canyon that we hiked. Since then excavations on the pipeline have been observed to approximately 5 kilometres east of Bridal Falls, but none have been seen in Chilliwack.
Every project has risks The key is to minimize the risks involved as much as possible
Now Kinder Morgan is going to start employing First Nations to monitor the pipelines they build through First Nations land With the prospects of good jobs no wonder First Nations support the project
Canada may face an era of pipeline abundance
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2017-01-...
Is an old strategy to first impoverish and make desperate and then you can buy support cheap.
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.
On the plus side, ruining the ground water will be great for companies like Nestle!
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.
Canada needs to diversify their markets so that we are not so dependent on the USA. PET said that a long time ago and it is still relevant toay. What better way to do that in the energy industry than bring oil to tidewater to ship overseas. Looking forward to completion of the Kinder Morgan project as soon as possible
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.
