It seems you have your mind set on the "it shouldn't be built" camp. That's cool. There is another pipeline that traverses the Rockies and has never had a spill since it was completed in 1953.Originally Posted by Chase
It seems you have your mind set on the "it shouldn't be built" camp. That's cool. There is another pipeline that traverses the Rockies and has never had a spill since it was completed in 1953.
ship navigation into vancouver is a different story than the rugged coast to the north tho innit
I do agree with that. However It must be "doable" if it's being proposed. Oil/pipeline companies aren't in the business of losing money. Having a tanker go down isn't in their best interests. Thus the northern channels must at least be somewhat navigable by tanker. I guess the biggest concern is that it's already a heavy shipping traffic lane?
i think it goes without saying they don't want to lose a ship.. but exxon valdez happened.. and specifically in the area of prince rupert, kitimat etc. the queen of the north ferry sank recently
point is there are many hazards to navigation there.. submerged rocks, currents, storms etc. it's very remote and rugged too so cleanup would be an absolute nightmare.. when they deliberately downplay the risk it's kind of alarming
You're post makes sense. And maybe I am just being naive in thinking a company wouldn't risk the kind of shit show they would be responsible for if there was some kind of accident. The oil company would be responsible for the cost of the clean up. How much would that run? Im guessing quite a few dollars. In the end its never good to question greed.
well look at BP, all that oil spilling for months and what of it? business as usual.. they have billions pon billions to throw at any obstacles
like you said, can't stop the inexorable.. all the oil in the ground must be extracted and burned, and when it's all finished we'll think of another way to power things
i never said it shouldn't be built ... in fact my first sentence was that i can totally see the business need.
what i said is, all the evidence i've seen makes me think it's a bad idea, and i don't like the way it's being handled.
info about other pipelines (such as the one you posted) is good info on the pro side. there are also many other pipelines with good safety records. that helps, but doesn't 100% mitigate the points i raised, ie: enron has had a brutal record for pipeline safety lately, and the route of the proposed pipeline is one of the most challenging routes ever for a pipeline.
ur welcome
oh it's a short line segment and therefore safe
I've included my proposal for where to lay the pipe
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
