Forums Forums Help/Rules Help Edit Profile My Profile Member List Register  
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search  
Ottertooth Forums * Temagami environment * Energy East Pipeline < Previous Next >

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through May 15, 2013grncnu25 05-15-13  1:34 am
  ClosedNew messages will be added after most recent message, not on archived pages        

Author Message
 Link to this message


Post Number: 291
Registered: 08-2010
Posted on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 12:14 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

interesting news today, summarized here: ml
that even on the embattled keystone xl line, which you'd think they'd be trying to soft-sell any way they could right about now, transcanada is refusing to adopt new technologies that would instantly detect tiny leaks, opting instead to rely on methods that would fail to detect leaks of up to 12,000 bbl./day or 1.5% of the line's total capacity from alberta to new orleans. to put that in perspective the macondo blowout (deepwater horizon) was 50-100,000 depending on who you believe- so 12,000 ain't too shabby!
the cost of implementing these new technologies would be pennies on the dollar compared to the overall cost of the line- they are even refusing to commit to spending $700,000 to cover the most environmentally/drinking water sensitive portions of the route (141 miles at a cost of $15,000/mile for a fibre optic system)...
mind you, they are explicitly stating that the absence of such technologies will not compromise safety on the xl since it is to be a state-of-the-art, newly-built line.
so what are their plans for leak-detection on the 55 year old energy east line? this is the kind of question the public needs to be asking since neither the gov't nor the media will.
 Link to this message


Post Number: 296
Registered: 08-2010
Posted on Saturday, July 13, 2013 - 1:09 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

the lac-megantic catastrophe is already being used to push pipelines.
the disaster caused a spill of 26.5-53,000 gallons of oil into the riviere chaudiere, one of canada's signature rivers, likely devastating it for the forseeable future, though this is being downplayed by the quebec government and the media.
while i agree that transporting crude oil, diluants (the chemicals used to dilute thick tarsands crude so that it can be pumped through pipelines, ref. the recent near-disaster on a flood-damaged railway bridge over the bow river in calgary) and other hazardous chemicals via rail (which has increased 20,000% in the last 5 years according to the cbc) is insane...
i'd ask folks to remember that pipeline spills tend to be much larger.
enbridge/kalamazoo was 877,000 gallons, exxon/arkansas was 300,000 gallons...
but "our oil must get to market"...
haven't you noticed?- it's making us all rich!
 Link to this message


Post Number: 301
Registered: 08-2010
Posted on Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - 2:26 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

whoops- the media has suddenly changed its reporting on the size of the lac-megantic spill. formerly claimed to be 100-200,000 litres (26.5-50,000 gallons), it has now mysteriously jumped to 5,700,000 litres (1,500,000 gallons)!!
go figure, i guess someone must've counted the wrong number of tanker cars- by a factor of 57!?
if true, this means the riviere chaudiere (and to some extent the whole st. lawrence downstream from quebec) are heavily damaged for at least decades.... there was a cbc radio report of a biologist about halfway down the river in a slow meandering section, and she said the smell was so overpowering they had to leave; there was no sign of aquatic life, though birds can be heard chirping in the background. the surface of the river was orange...
of course they were lucky, this was light crude from the bakken formation in n. dakota, not heavy tarsands crude mixed with diluants from alberta.
coming soon to an ecosystem near you- if we remain complacent and figure gov't and industry, out of the goodness of their hearts, will place environmental interests foremost ahead of economic interests. if we let it happen it will be because we have chosen to abdicate our responsibility as citizens, as the actual owners of this country; in other words that we fundamentally do not give a ****...
 Link to this message


Post Number: 303
Registered: 08-2010
Posted on Friday, August 2, 2013 - 2:11 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

in the hope that i'm not just talking exclusively to myself on this thread...
as most of you are no doubt aware trans-canada announced today (aug. 1st) that it is moving ahead with the energy east pipeline project, repurposing 3,000 kms of 55-year old natural gas pipeline through northern & eastern ontario, and constructing 1,400 kms of new line through quebec and new brunswick, to transport 1.1 million barrels per day of diluted tarsands bitumen to refineries in quebec city and st. john and to a new deepwater oil export terminal also at st. john.
here is transcanada's news release: tml?id=1746092
news coverage based on this release and interviews with ceo russ girling have stressed that it will allegedly be used to supply oil to "eastern canada and the northeastern united states", thereby reducing our dependence on imported oil, as well as providing oil for export (hence the deepwater oil port construction).
i urge people to wade through this press release to the last paragraph, the one entitled "forward looking information", in which they essentially say that nothing in the entire release (please read this section very carefully, it was written by expensive lawyers) can be taken as binding in any way, shape or form, and that they will not update or correct anything they say in the said release, at any future time, except "where required by law"...
my take on this (for what it may or may not be worth) is that simple economics will dictate the ultimate destinations for the projected 1.1 millon barrels/day to be transported by the energy east line.
exporting the oil to india will earn the world or brent crude price which is much higher than the price we get from the us or pay for conventional north american produced crude.
the only way the energy east's 1.1 Mbbl/day of yet-to-be-refined bitumen will "reduce our dependence on foreign oil" is if a) consumers are willing to pay a much higher price at the pump, or b) the government subsidizes the oil delivered to consumers out of the consumers' tax dollars (really a subsidy to the producers underwritten by the taxpayers, obviously).
there is no other way.
also, ask yourself how a 12 billion dollar investment by the corporation and its investors (plus a mere 400 million for the st. john deepwater export terminal) will pay for itself, if simply intended to benefit eastern canadians by providing them with cheaper domestic refined oil products such as gasoline- a simple enough question. we are living in a capatalist system- where's the profit? it's not a charity operation...
finally, as per usual no discussion anywhere about what- if anything- will be done, from an engineering standpoint, nor how much of the 12-billion project cost will be spent, to repurpose the 55-year old 3,000 km. long natural gas pipeline to transport diluted heated bitumen from the tarsands across dozens of watersheds through ontario including temagami.
were the line to rupture (as has happened on the existing natgas pipeline 5 times since 1979) the "oil" discharged in a day would be the equivalent of 16-20 days of the deepwater horizon spill into the gulf of mexico (reported at 50-60,000 bbl/day)...
and of course no information on the point raised previously on this thread about how the deficit in natural gas deliveries to ontario and points east will be met, nor the implication for price...
and no discussion of global warming- does that issue even exist anymore? ask the insurance companies....
 Link to this message


Post Number: 242
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Friday, September 27, 2013 - 2:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

this issue is kind of dead in the water. barely anyone knows about it, even less care and it's received next to no news coverage. i downloaded the form to fill out to even COMMENT on the project, and it's basically a small book and only professionals can really have an input. cheers to fascism

(Message edited by dave on September 27, 2013)

Add Your Message Here
Bold text Italics Underline Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
Only registered users may post messages here. If you have cookies enabled, your username and password will automatically appear in the boxes. Register

Forums | Last Day | Last Week | Search | User List | Help/Rules Home