No more oil tankers

No more oil tankers

Postby bourgeau@telus.net » Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:54 am

Hello Friends
If you believe the BC coastline and marine wildlife is more important than oil revenue for international oil companies please take action soon. Steven Harper has announced his intention to fast track the Northern Gateway Pipeline approval process and Christy Clark refuses to take a stand for BC. Please summit a letter of comment today and ask your friends family to do the same.

Visit the site below to submit a letter of comment to key members of Parliament.
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6403/ ... n_KEY=2002

Warm Regards
Mark Bourgeau
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bourgeau@telus.net
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:25 pm
Location: Ladner BC
Supporting Member

Postby Bob Lowe » Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:26 am

Unfortunately, many of the links explaining the issues and route do not work, at least for me.

I would be interested in reading about the issues. I know about the "oil revenue for international oil companies" but what about the revenue, about $184 billion over the next 25 years for Alberta alone. And then there are the jobs, about 139,000 in mining and oil and gas extraction.

And oil sands development creates jobs outside of Alberta: 23% of oil sands-related employment is outside the province. That rises to 28% for construction-related jobs.

Ontario is one of the largest benefactors, with 812,000 person-years, or 7% of Canadian employment resulting from oil sands activities. B.C. is second with 713,000 person-years, or 6% of Canadian employment.

How can the pros and cons be properly evaluated? Can the pipeline be built and operated in an environmentally sound manner? What are the true risks involved if built? What are the risks if not built?

What are the tax consequences for the people if the pipeline is not built? That revenue will have to be made up somehow.

While I'm not Canadian, we have similar problems here and the logic would be applicable in both countries, so I would be interested in learning the facts of the issues on both sides, pro and con. :)
Good luck,
Bob Lowe
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
User avatar
Bob Lowe
Posts: 13281
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 1999 2:00 am
Location: Mexico
Supporting Member

Postby Georg Daniel Reuter » Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:01 am

I think the oil industry's PR people are not giving this whole oil / tar sand extraction process the right spin :wink: ! Rather than defend themselves against claims from the ardent environmentalists, the oil industry should be going on the offensive. Seen in the correct light, the oil industry in Alberta is not engaged in the resource extraction business, but instead is participating in a massive soil remediation project, dedicated to the clean-up of billions of tons of oil and tar contaminated sand :wink: ! If by chance a by-product of this unprecedented environmental remediation project is the production of some fossil fuels that have to be piped away for safe disposal on other continents, then this is simply a cost we must be prepared to tolerate and endure for the overall betterment of our environment.

Cheers

G
Georg Reuter
"Civetta"
GB 32 - 540
Vancouver
Canada

“Believe me my young friend; there is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats” Kenneth Grahame, The Wind in the Willows (1908)
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
User avatar
Georg Daniel Reuter
Posts: 753
Joined: Sun May 16, 1999 2:00 am
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Supporting Member

Postby Bob Lowe » Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:08 am

Very good and clever, Georg! I like it! You may have a new day job on the offing. :)
Good luck,

Bob Lowe
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
User avatar
Bob Lowe
Posts: 13281
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 1999 2:00 am
Location: Mexico
Supporting Member

Postby Stretch Head » Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:28 pm

OIL, It's what I burn in my GB. :D
Capt Head
GB42-17 Classic Cockpit Model

My personal Banned List; All Polyester resins, Silicone, Bondo and sea sick crew.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
User avatar
Stretch Head
Posts: 3565
Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Wilmington, CA. USA
Supporting Member

Postby Keith Morris » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:08 pm

Maybe we can get the Navy to stop bringing tankers in front of my house every month and offloading oil. That might be a personal benefit to me, but I'm sure the Navy supply ships that need the stuff would miss it. The world runs on oil. Ships that bring it supply petroleum for every aspect of our lives, not just gasoline. Clothing, plastics, every thing we do and the rest of the world does, is done with oil. There is risk with tanker delivery, but I believe it's a manageable risk and a risk worth taking. I'm sure my opinion will not be popular with some here, but that's the way I see it. Not only do we need tankers, but we need the Keystone Pipeline as well.
Keith
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
User avatar
Keith Morris
Posts: 1746
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Manchester, WA
Supporting Member

Postby Georg Daniel Reuter » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:27 pm

On a more serious note, I can see the concerns with oil tankers and the potentially very significant environmental impact of an oil spill in the ocean from a tanker accident (I however also agree with Keith that this is a manageable, and in reality, unavoidable risk of our modern economy).

What has me scratching my head a bit is the professed environmental concern with oil pipelines. It seems to me that a rupture in an oil pipeline is relatively easy to contain: you simply shut off the pipeline at the closest pumping station. While some oil will be spilled in the process, the amount of oil spilled when compared to a tanker accident will be minimal. Furthermore, the oil is not being spilled in the ocean where its clean-up is extremely difficult: the oil from a pipeline rupture is spilled on the ground (which is where the oil came from in the first place) and where its clean-up should in most cases be a relatively straight forward matter.
Georg Reuter

"Civetta"

GB 32 - 540

Vancouver

Canada



“Believe me my young friend; there is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats” Kenneth Grahame, The Wind in the Willows (1908)
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
User avatar
Georg Daniel Reuter
Posts: 753
Joined: Sun May 16, 1999 2:00 am
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Supporting Member

Postby GB42-267 » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:47 pm

Hey, my job's at risk here. No more oil freight at sea and I'm done :(

Bjorn M
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
User avatar
GB42-267
Posts: 1471
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:43 am
Location: Poulsbo, WA
Supporting Member

Postby Keith Morris » Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:31 pm

Georg Daniel Reuter wrote:On a more serious note, I can see the concerns with oil tankers and the potentially very significant environmental impact of an oil spill in the ocean from a tanker accident (I however also agree with Keith that this is a manageable, and in reality, unavoidable risk of our modern economy).

What has me scratching my head a bit is the professed environmental concern with oil pipelines. It seems to me that a rupture in an oil pipeline is relatively easy to contain: you simply shut off the pipeline at the closest pumping station. While some oil will be spilled in the process, the amount of oil spilled when compared to a tanker accident will be minimal. Furthermore, the oil is not being spilled in the ocean where its clean-up is extremely difficult: the oil from a pipeline rupture is spilled on the ground (which is where the oil came from in the first place) and where its clean-up should in most cases be a relatively straight forward matter.


I agree. And we have pipelines criss-srossing the entire country like a spider web. I can't remember the last time one of those broke. If it did, It was nothing compared to an "at sea" oil incident.
Keith
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
User avatar
Keith Morris
Posts: 1746
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Manchester, WA
Supporting Member

Postby bourgeau@telus.net » Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:16 pm

Good comments in deed, I can only hope to persuade you to look closer at the issues for our children’s sake. For those of us lucky enough to have sailed the inside passage and the 85 mile length of Douglas Channel from Hecate Strait to Kitimat we know that this is a challenging waterway often shrouded in fog and with many narrow passages which begs the question, why not pipe the tar to Prince Rupert where a world class sea port rests upon open water and with the shortest call to Asia. The answer, simply because the pipeline would cost more to build, so then what is the price of a major spill in Douglas Channel? Questions which perhaps could be addressed in full open public hearings but now Prime minister Steven Harper is trying to fast track these hearing and quell the discussion.

The issues:
When did economics trump democracy?
http://www.behindthenumbers.ca/2012/03/ ... m-profits/

Does selling our oil resources to China really help us here in North America?
http://business.financialpost.com/2012/ ... a=64ae14b0

Why not pipe the tar to the safer port of Prince Rupert?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... le2299228/

Simon Fraser University study estimates a Valdez scale spill every 12 years based on 225 tanker trips through Douglas Channel
http://wcel.org/our-work/tar-sands-tankers-pipelines-0

Elmbridge and the oil companies are not responsible for a tanker spill, the individual shipping companies carry this responsibility but the liability laws appear inadequate so in the end tax payers and local businesses pay the price.
http://www.jlsreport.com/?p=3500

Cheers
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bourgeau@telus.net
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:25 pm
Location: Ladner BC
Supporting Member

Postby Bob Lowe » Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:47 pm

I think the answer is to build the Keystone pipeline from Canada down to the Gulf, keep the oil in North America and forget China which would solve several problems including shipping oil by water on the BC Coast.

But, I'm afraid that is too much for Obama to comprehend.
Good luck,

Bob Lowe
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
User avatar
Bob Lowe
Posts: 13281
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 1999 2:00 am
Location: Mexico
Supporting Member

Postby 2Bucks » Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:21 pm

Maybe a little more complex than simply shutting off the valve. 277,000 gallons of gasoline, 2 creeks contaminated and 3 dead seems like a more complex problem than just a little dirt cleanup. http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?Di ... le_id=5468

But, the number of incidents like this one are fairly rare. All things considered, pipelines are fairly safe. I live near two of them which carry petroleum and several which carry natural gas. Build more.

Ken

Georg Daniel Reuter wrote:On a more serious note, I can see the concerns with oil tankers and the potentially very significant environmental impact of an oil spill in the ocean from a tanker accident (I however also agree with Keith that this is a manageable, and in reality, unavoidable risk of our modern economy).

What has me scratching my head a bit is the professed environmental concern with oil pipelines. It seems to me that a rupture in an oil pipeline is relatively easy to contain: you simply shut off the pipeline at the closest pumping station. While some oil will be spilled in the process, the amount of oil spilled when compared to a tanker accident will be minimal. Furthermore, the oil is not being spilled in the ocean where its clean-up is extremely difficult: the oil from a pipeline rupture is spilled on the ground (which is where the oil came from in the first place) and where its clean-up should in most cases be a relatively straight forward matter.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
2Bucks
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:00 am
Location: Puyallup, WA, US
Supporting Member

Postby Keith Morris » Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:53 am

2Bucks wrote:Maybe a little more complex than simply shutting off the valve. 277,000 gallons of gasoline, 2 creeks contaminated and 3 dead seems like a more complex problem than just a little dirt cleanup. http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?Di ... le_id=5468

But, the number of incidents like this one are fairly rare. All things considered, pipelines are fairly safe. I live near two of them which carry petroleum and several which carry natural gas. Build more.

Ken



I remember that incident. It could have been prevented had procedures and warnings been heeded.
Keith
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
User avatar
Keith Morris
Posts: 1746
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Manchester, WA
Supporting Member


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests