NO to Enbridge

[imdoo'n]

I myself agree that we need oil, but i am not overly confident or like the big pipelines going thru some very enviromentally sensitive area's to get to the coast. Over 20 years ago there was experimental drilling done just off shore of the BC coast and they found some MASSIVE deposits of oil. But that being said the gov't at the time made a smart decision in my opinion and put a moritorium on offshore drilling on the BC coast. The reason being that they cant drill it and do it where there isn't a good likelyhood of a spill. This is because they say that the floor of the ocean is extremely jagged and rocky just like the coastline. My biggest concern is that if there was a spill along one of the many salmon spawning streams/rivers what impact would that have? That would or could affect alot of people's jobs in the fishing industry. I see and talk to alot of people that work in the oil feild and i have been told by several people that if we only knew half of what really goes on envirmentally it'd make most people sick. Like other people have said accidents happen and human error happens and i'm not sure that we all should be so redilly willing to except the risk of the pristine enviroment we have here. BC has a unique coastal rainforest with other unique animal species and i'm not convinced that the oil and gas companies are always very concerned about that stuff, it seems that they can be more concerned about getting there product out easier, cheaper, and getting a better price. And yet you always here how the oil and gas companies are making record profits.

Dont get me wrong i know that we need oil and such, and there are alot of people in the oil and gas industry that do take great pride in there work and do very good work. I am also in no way saying that the oil and gas companies dont care about the enviroment. I worked in the logging industry before and i seem some of the things that went on in logging. I just get catious because of what could possibly happen if there was a spill.

How much experience does any of the oil and gas companies have dealing with an oil spill in BC's type of terrian and topography? Just askin cause i dont know.

maybe i'm getting you wrong, but i think both imperial oil and bp have lots of experience in this area of environmental disaster

 

[imdoo'n]

light oil, lighter than heavy oil should float better? eh.





friggin oil

 

[glengine]

whenever a pipeline goes through a river in BC there is a shutoff valve on shore which im sure now can be controlled remotely at the instant a problem arises.

second...

didnt look at the pics all that carefully but how do you backfill properly in a swamp

But the issue where a problem could arise isn't just where it crosses the river/stream, in BC so much of the area's all run down into them. BC is nowhere's near flat. LOL.

How do you backfill on solid rock?

I think that is why for the most part the pipeline that is running thru the Jasper National Park is above ground. Alot of swampy and rocky ground.

But that is more or less my question, how much experience do the companies have at dealing with pipelines and the type of terrian we have in BC?

 

[Mike270412]

Some of the responses here are pretty serious and being involved in the oil patch for most of my working life...I can assure you that Rainbow or now Plains would never jepordize the environment knowingly and, as Modman said;...most simply have no idea the amount of money that is lost in a single day when a pipeline goes down.

I never said either of those things?

Think you read that wrong.

 

[Pinner]

whenever a pipeline goes through a river in BC there is a shutoff valve on shore which im sure now can be controlled remotely at the instant a problem arises.

Just like the Pine River spill, just keep re starting the pumps when they go down on low pressure

Hopefully this spill will cost enough, to prevent another...

 

[glengine]

maybe i'm getting you wrong, but i think both imperial oil and bp have lots of experience in this area of environmental disaster

I was just asking, but are you referring to there big spill in the ocean? I would agree that yes in the ocean/large body of water yes they do. But do they when it involves rocky mountainous terrian? I dont know and that is why i am asking.

 

[maxwell]

But the issue where a problem could arise isn't just where it crosses the river/stream, in BC so much of the area's all run down into them. BC is nowhere's near flat. LOL.

How do you backfill on solid rock?

I think that is why for the most part the pipeline that is running thru the Jasper National Park is above ground. Alot of swampy and rocky ground.

But that is more or less my question, how much experience do the companies have at dealing with pipelines and the type of terrian we have in BC?

pretty sure the pipeline they just finished twinning through the park is all underground..

 

[fargineyesore]

Pipelines are the safest method of transport, period. Consider the amount of pipelines currently carrying product and the amount of spills. What makes BC's environment so much more important than Alberta? Aren't they both important? A crude oil spill can be cleaned up. True it will affect the ecology for a time adversely, but the effects are not permanent, as the main ingredient in crude is carbon, which will eventually be broken down by microbes. Obviously no one wants a spill anywhere and BC does have the salmon thing, etc, but if the oil is going to go to market, it has to go somewhere. That means all of us may have to have a pipeline in our area at one time or another. We can't sit here and say "I want to burn the fuel in my sleds, trucks, cars, etc., but I want the pipeline to go in someone else's area because if the pipeline breaks, I want them to have to deal with the environmental consequences, not me." There is a pipeline that currently travels from Edmonton to Vancouver area, Transmountain pipeline. Does anyone know of any spills on this one? I don't remember hearing about any, but that doesn't mean there haven't been any, I don't know. My point is that yes, there is some risk, but I believe that the risks have to be accepted in order to market the product, or just shut the fields down and we can all go back to burning wood.

 

[glengine]

pretty sure the pipeline they just finished twinning through the park is all underground..

I havn't been thru the park in quite awhile now. I just remember seeing it all above ground last time i went thru(last summer).

So then my question remains how do you properly backfill in swampy ground or solid rock? So that you dont get alot of movement of the pipe, as from what i have read and such is what causes the problems.

 

[maxwell]

I havn't been thru the park in quite awhile now. I just remember seeing it all above ground last time i went thru(last summer).

So then my question remains how do you properly backfill in swampy ground or solid rock? So that you dont get alot of movement of the pipe, as from what i have read and such is what causes the problems.

they set it all and weld it up before they lower it into the trench.

rock is not a problem. dig trench and fill with granular material. no movement.

swamps i dont know. they go through them in the winter or by directional drilling.

 

[maxwell]

Pipelines are the safest method of transport, period. Consider the amount of pipelines currently carrying product and the amount of spills. What makes BC's environment so much more important than Alberta? Aren't they both important? A crude oil spill can be cleaned up. True it will affect the ecology for a time adversely, but the effects are not permanent, as the main ingredient in crude is carbon, which will eventually be broken down by microbes. Obviously no one wants a spill anywhere and BC does have the salmon thing, etc, but if the oil is going to go to market, it has to go somewhere. That means all of us may have to have a pipeline in our area at one time or another. We can't sit here and say "I want to burn the fuel in my sleds, trucks, cars, etc., but I want the pipeline to go in someone else's area because if the pipeline breaks, I want them to have to deal with the environmental consequences, not me." There is a pipeline that currently travels from Edmonton to Vancouver area, Transmountain pipeline. Does anyone know of any spills on this one? I don't remember hearing about any, but that doesn't mean there haven't been any, I don't know. My point is that yes, there is some risk, but I believe that the risks have to be accepted in order to market the product, or just shut the fields down and we can all go back to burning wood.

exactly. did alot of pipeline surveying. if you look at the plans of most of alberta its absolutely rediculous the amount of pipelines. some small and some large. you can pull up any given section in alberta and it will look like a maze of pipe on the plan. its impressive to me that these incidents occur only as often as they do.

 

[glengine]

Pipelines are the safest method of transport, period. Consider the amount of pipelines currently carrying product and the amount of spills. What makes BC's environment so much more important than Alberta? Aren't they both important? A crude oil spill can be cleaned up. True it will affect the ecology for a time adversely, but the effects are not permanent, as the main ingredient in crude is carbon, which will eventually be broken down by microbes. Obviously no one wants a spill anywhere and BC does have the salmon thing, etc, but if the oil is going to go to market, it has to go somewhere. That means all of us may have to have a pipeline in our area at one time or another. We can't sit here and say "I want to burn the fuel in my sleds, trucks, cars, etc., but I want the pipeline to go in someone else's area because if the pipeline breaks, I want them to have to deal with the environmental consequences, not me." There is a pipeline that currently travels from Edmonton to Vancouver area, Transmountain pipeline. Does anyone know of any spills on this one? I don't remember hearing about any, but that doesn't mean there haven't been any, I don't know. My point is that yes, there is some risk, but I believe that the risks have to be accepted in order to market the product, or just shut the fields down and we can all go back to burning wood.

I never suggested that one provinces envirment was more important than the other's. But they are two totally different types of terrian so the way the do things would be completely different in my opinion. For example if you had an oil spill on swampy ground it'd be alot different to clean-up and manage than if it was on a rock surface. Both equally as important but compl,etely different to deal with.

The thing with the salmon is if by some chance a spill happened on or near a salmon spawning river/stream during spawning season when the salmon are making there way up stream to spawn and are alot of the time near the surface of the water would that not cause some catastrofic consequences to those salmon. What kind of safety sytems are either in place or able to put in place to protect against things like this. Dont know this is why i'm asking.

 

[frock]

I don't think that BC's enviro is any more important than Alberta's, but it is different with different considerations.

The salmon runs are very fragile with a lot of families incomes relying on them. There is commercial fishermen that would argue with you as to whether their livelihood is as important as the oil producers, I'm sure. I know people who rely on the salmon for their food and without it would be very, very hard pressed to feed themselves and their families.

Is there another way to get this oil to market where it doesn't have to go through these areas?????? This is a valid question that I asked earlier. I'm not saying shut off the oil. I am saying that I know big corporations will look at the least expensive way to do this, that's how they keep share values up.

 

[fargineyesore]

When crossing rivers, streams, etc, they use heavy wall pipe as one of the ways to make the stream crossing safer. They have shut off valves one each side of major, sensitive streams, and the National Energy Board and CEIA have to approve the construction and response plan that is submitted to them before the pipeline will receive a certificate to construct and operate. That brings the question of whether you trust the govt to monitor this stuff (another discussion) but stream crossings have come a long way since the days when the Rainbow and other older pipelines were built. When a pipeline is proposed through an area, there is public disclosure (newspapers usually for the general public) that the operator is planning a project, and there is a toll free number or email address given for people to ask these very questions you are asking. If you do not receive satisfactory answers, you can advise the NEB (which this Enbridge project would fall under) and they will often tell the proponent to provide said answers. The system isn't perfect, and not everyone is happy with the outcome, but you can find the answers to your questions and you don't have to have the pipeline running directly through your property to have the right to ask questions and get information.

 

[maxwell]

put yourself in their shoes.

business is business.

run the pipeline hundreds of miles of course and create tons of pump stations to compensate for the extra length to avoid certain environmental areas.


or..

create a quality product during the construction phase with plenty of safety features/environmental controls/monitoring and emergency plans.

its just more feasable and very possible to create a pipeline that will never see an issue in its lifespan if constructed properly.

keep in mind sending the pipeline off course may be even more problematic in the longrun if a spill does occur. having it run closely to highways and major roads as access points for repair and cleanup are essential.

 

[Modman]

they set it all and weld it up before they lower it into the trench.

rock is not a problem. dig trench and fill with granular material. no movement.

swamps i dont know. they go through them in the winter or by directional drilling.

If by granular material you mean sand then yes, no big rocks on pipelines, the freezing and thawing in our climate will move the rocks and then they scar the coating and the pipe gets a weak spot.

Backfilling through a swamp, there are lots of options. Weight the pipe to keep it down otherwise it will float, backfill with peat, soft peat isn't going hurt the pipe. You can also drive pilings deep down and then set the pipe on the pilings. They make a geo-grid now that you can lay on the surface and build over as well.

Glen, they do know a lot about cleaning up the spills, and honestly, spill response is not rocket science - #1 make sure things are safe, #2 stop the flow of oil, #3 clean it up by any means necessary (kinda the basics but you get the idea). The more oil you can remove initially, the better off you are. If you can think of it, there is a product to clean it up. Aqua dams, vacuum trucks, flocculants, skimmers, heli-portable bulldozers etc. There is some seriously cool stuff out there.

The long lasting effects of oil on a habitat are the unknowns that you really can't say "this or that is going to happen" because the weather is unpredictable. In some places the ecology of the region rebounds really quickly and you might see no effects after 5 yrs, in other areas it doesn't and the effects are long lasting. They kind of go hand in hand as well. Reclamation of the habitat and vegetation is typically the toughest part, and its dependant on climate and many other factors.

The BC Ministry of the Environment is well set up and is very conservative on these issues, they are tough cookies on the environment issues, comparatively to AB who's guidelines are less restrictive.

 

[fargineyesore]

I don't think that BC's enviro is any more important than Alberta's, but it is different with different considerations.

The salmon runs are very fragile with a lot of families incomes relying on them. There is commercial fishermen that would argue with you as to whether their livelihood is as important as the oil producers, I'm sure. I know people who rely on the salmon for their food and without it would be very, very hard pressed to feed themselves and their families.

Is there another way to get this oil to market where it doesn't have to go through these areas?????? This is a valid question that I asked earlier. I'm not saying shut off the oil. I am saying that I know big corporations will look at the least expensive way to do this, that's how they keep share values up.

Much of what you say is true, but I would say to the commercial fishermen "the oilfield workers livelihood is important too, as without the oil producers, there would be no jobs in the oil patch." Are the fishermen going to agree to pick up the tab for the longer route of the pipeline to avoid the salmon areas, because they sure like to use the product to power their boats. One is not more important than the other, and denying a project, which will create more jobs in BC than even in Alberta because commercial fishermen think that even the miniscule possibility of a spill is too great a risk is not reasonable. As for the route of the pipeline, I don't know how you'd get the pipeline to the coast, whether it be the west coast or north to the arctic coast, without crossing sensitive habitat. The people up north would argue the same "environmental" impact issues, so who do you please and who do you p@#$s off?

 

[glengine]

Much of what you say is true, but I would say to the commercial fishermen "the oilfield workers livelihood is important too, as without the oil producers, there would be no jobs in the oil patch." Are the fishermen going to agree to pick up the tab for the longer route of the pipeline to avoid the salmon areas, because they sure like to use the product to power their boats. One is not more important than the other, and denying a project, which will create more jobs in BC than even in Alberta because commercial fishermen think that even the miniscule possibility of a spill is too great a risk is not reasonable. As for the route of the pipeline, I don't know how you'd get the pipeline to the coast, whether it be the west coast or north to the arctic coast, without crossing sensitive habitat. The people up north would argue the same "environmental" impact issues, so who do you please and who do you p@#$s off?

I agree partly with your statement. In the aspect that what makes one person's job more important than the others. And yes it would create jobs in BC.

But the way some people look at is the possibility of endangering some of BC's natural resources for the means of transporting product from another province so that the oil companies can get more markets for there oil and make more money. From what i have read that is the biggest benefit of the pipelines is that they would have more than one market to sell there product so they could get more money for it. One way of looking at it would be like saying that there is a small chance of an oil spill if they drilled offshore of BC between prince rupert and the queen charlotte islands, which from all my research has one of the largest natural oil deposits in north america(not including the oil sands). When they did test drilling 20+ years ago they didn't even find the outer boundaries of it. So should BC start offshore drilling to create more jobs and just try to manage the oil spill risk?

The other thing is that if there is all that oil offshore and all the oil in AB i highly doubt that there isnt any oil in between the two. But due to topography it is alot easier to drill in AB than in the rock of bc. So there is also the way to look at it in the aspect that with a pipeline it may entice more oil companies to do alot more testing thru out BC. So in turn it could create alot more spin-off jobs. So it is kinda a catch 22. The way i look at it is simple if they can do it safely then it's not necassarily a bad thing, but i also dont want to see a bunch of enviromental damage either. I want my son to be able to enjoy all the wonderful beauty that our beautiful province of BC has to offer when he gets older.

 

[fargineyesore]

True, they don't call it Beautiful B.C. for nothing. No one, even us Albertans, want to see that landscaped scarred in any way. I believe they can do it safely, but that is my opinion and the fact is that there will always be a small amount of risk. It comes down to whether the risk outweighs the rewards I guess. You are right that the producers are trying to find another market, as demand increases the price. I think that if the oil reserves run out here in Alberta, Sask and in northern BC (which is mostly gas I think), and society hasn't found an alternate source of energy by then, you'll see drilling between Prince Rupert and the Queen Charlotte islands. I think no oil, regardless of where it is, will be left alone then.

 

[maierch]

I agree partly with your statement. In the aspect that what makes one person's job more important than the others. And yes it would create jobs in BC.

But the way some people look at is the possibility of endangering some of BC's natural resources for the means of transporting product from another province so that the oil companies can get more markets for there oil and make more money. From what i have read that is the biggest benefit of the pipelines is that they would have more than one market to sell there product so they could get more money for it. One way of looking at it would be like saying that there is a small chance of an oil spill if they drilled offshore of BC between prince rupert and the queen charlotte islands, which from all my research has one of the largest natural oil deposits in north america(not including the oil sands). When they did test drilling 20+ years ago they didn't even find the outer boundaries of it. So should BC start offshore drilling to create more jobs and just try to manage the oil spill risk?

The other thing is that if there is all that oil offshore and all the oil in AB i highly doubt that there isnt any oil in between the two. But due to topography it is alot easier to drill in AB than in the rock of bc. So there is also the way to look at it in the aspect that with a pipeline it may entice more oil companies to do alot more testing thru out BC. So in turn it could create alot more spin-off jobs. So it is kinda a catch 22. The way i look at it is simple if they can do it safely then it's not necassarily a bad thing, but i also dont want to see a bunch of enviromental damage either. I want my son to be able to enjoy all the wonderful beauty that our beautiful province of BC has to offer when he gets older.

Oil reserves in the Pacific Margin (Offshore BC) and Intermontane (interior of BC and the Yukon) Sedimentary Basins account of a total of 7% of Canada's Hydrocarbon reserves. The Western Canadian (Everything east of the Rockies out to Manitoba) Sedimentary Basin accounts for 57%. I have a feeling that the decision in the 70s not to develop the resources offshore in BC has more to do with Economics than environmental stewardship.