shipping dilemma

Subject: Time for Common Sense

We must REDUCE THE PROBABILITY and minimize consequences of an ‘incident’. HOW?

1.TRAIN:— The Board of Directors must SHOW that training was DEVELOPED and DELIVERED in line with international technical and operating knowledge. Example—the Enbridge Kalamazoo pipe line failure —Were known pipe line system deficiencies addressed adequately and was maintenance and operating field personnel and control room staff training ‘up to snuff’??

The Enbridge Inc. Board of Directors is responsible for the overall STEWARDSHIP;say Enbridge;which means planning and management of ALL resources? Kinder Morgan ,likewise I’d guess.

2.Use COMMON SENSE —see PLANS A and B.

KINDER MORGAN : Proposed scary PLAN A:—Burrard inlet location:
It’s a “Tight squeeze through Second Narrows—”says “North Vancouver oceanographer Peter Baker points out that Port Metro has changed its rules to allow larger tankers, carrying 700,000 barrels of oil, to travel through Second Narrows...see link http://www.georgiastrait.org/files/share/kerSafetyExpertPanel-PB-0v1-61-5July2010-rdx.pdf read this and decide what should be done—lots of room for debate I assume—but the tankers get wider and the Narrows remain narrow.
KINDER MORGAN : PLAN B —Relocate all Kinder Morgan facilities and shipping and to ROBERTS BANK—that’s why Roberts Bank was built—yes we know that a conveyor system could be damaged as happened recently at Westshore terminals—but what about a Burrard Inlet CNR rail bridge damage ‘incident’ and SPILL at Second Narrows??...OR WORSE ?
ENBRIDGE: Proposed scary PLAN A ; Douglas Channel transit .
ENBRIDGE:PLAN B—move OUT of Douglas Channel.
BC citizens should not be asked to bear all the risks without comprehensive disaster insurance scheme in place—!
The BC public needs to see a willingness by the pipe liners to listen and respond—OR
maybe we’re left with the option of leaving the oil in the ground !! Until???
Carl Shalansky,P. Eng.(retired)
3359 Redfern Place,
North Vancouver,B.C. V7N 3W2
6049864657

Enbridge P O P lacks FIZZ

The Hearings are looking into a lot of stuff—BUT the big elephant in the room as I see it is Enbridge’s lack of corporate (by the Board of Directors) commitment to the public about to doing a better job of OPERATING their systems..their proven lack of concern about operational safety (see NTSB Kalamazoo reports,etc.) lingers in our minds—anyone can BUILD a good pipeline (although Enbridge needed to ad significantly –(half billion dollars worth!) –to boost the safety components in the 11th hour -in response to public concerns generated by the Kalamazoo NTSB report)—

the PIPE part of a pipeline is the easy part to sell—it’s the POP part that concerns many –

’P’—the party ;

‘O’-- OPERATING the

‘P’ Pipeline!

Enbridge said, here and there, that they’ve learned from the Kalamazoo and they’ve made some progress in their training and organization to do a better job. —BUT pipelines don’t improve with age the last time I checked –only a continual, due diligent, approach to ongoing system operations safety can begin to result in a safe system—the Kalamazoo line was 40 or 50 years ‘old’—as I read the NTSB report ,they were NOT impressed with Enbridge’ management of this aging system—We don’ want to see a repeat of this style of management on OUR aging Northern Gateway Pipeline..

Enbridge have not been able to convince the public that they’ll behave differently –what to me looks like unwillingness to ‘fess up’ to past screw ups—and to state categorically that they now have changed their ways.
What the public needs to see IN WRITING and at public gatherings is the NEW ENBRIDGE MANDATE about their full Board commitment to how they’ll change –show the NEW organization and spell out the details of this new approach—

The public ‘read’ Enbridge with suspicion as they BULLY THEIR WAY thru this hearing process---

My ideas about an ‘Epiphany’ may be laughable to the Enbridge folks—BUT what they’re doing to date is not convincing us that they’ll change – their pretty picture ,fluffy ads are annoying and likely counter productive..I

I stand by my lecture(Trust Enbridge?) to Enbridge—I offered this as a constructive formula of ‘repentance’ and suggestion for meaningful and progressive way to get the public and political arenas accepting the NEW ENBRIDGE—do they have the cojones –I remain doubtful---

Result;another un-built pipeline –maybe we’ll eventually see a different proponent with better savvy about ‘we peasants’ in BC--

And, I’ve not received any response from Enbridge,yet—maybe a canned response will arrive one day—as has happened occasionally in the past..

 

pretty pix won't work.show us the BEEF!

I sent an email recently, to my MP(copy to my friend) ,suggesting that Enbridge are BULLYING their way thru these NEB Hearings and Enbridge are NOT CONVINCING the public that they really intend to change their MO for operations practices.—We hear a little ‘talk’ from Enbridge , here and there ,about how they’ve ‘learned’ but we see little of substance—except a bombardment of useless, pretty picture, questionable ads from their Janet Holder.Instead,we need to see the BOARD make written statement telling us specifically WHAT THE BOARD WILL DO,AND HOW IT WILL CHANGE—IN WRITING. Also to provide the details of their specific plans to change their operating methods; how will their organization attend to ALL their 30,40 or 50 year old pipelines from now on?—The NTSB was not impressed with Enbridge’s management of the record breaking ,oil land spill, in the Michigan,Kalamazoo stretch of pipeline!!—

Show us how the NEW ORGANIZATION will provide OVERSIGHT from now on!—SHOW US,PLEASE!

My friend suggests I look at today's page FP4, (National Post, 14 December), regarding SNC-Lavalin and, in part, it's Board(of Directors).

Boards are supposed to provide direction and advice—SNC messed up according to a quote from billionaire Stephen Jarislowsky, the largest single shareholder in SNC: ---told Bloomberg April 30 that SNC's current slate of directors provided INADEQUATE OVERSIGHT before the internal probe began. "We have a board that didn't keep its eye on things. The discipline was pretty loose."

Did Enbridge Board provide the OVERSIGHT that ‘permitted’ the aging Michigan line to remain ‘unattended’ and to produce that unfortunate mess in Kalamazoo ?If not the Enbridge Board –then WHO?

My MP did respond to me and expressed some general interest(good) but he doesn’t find it necessary to take Enbridge to task about their lack of clear commitment to OPERATIONS SAFETY; FROM NOW ON!---instead he parroted the usual government party line – "..the coast of BC has had the presence of shipping for well over a hundred years without any serious environmental issues..."

These proposed pipelines, pipeline facilities and MEGA OIL TANKERS are scheduled to ‘arrive’ in 2014 and on, not 1900. My friend continues—“Using history in this matter is useless, in my opinion. Compare, a few dozen per year 100-foot sailing ships to over seven hundred (Enbridge and Kinder Morgan) upwards of 1000-foot super tankers in narrow channels and heavily populated areas.

I think some of these MLAs and MPs are part of the problem. They stand in awe and take whatever Enbridge tells them as gospel!”

The public are still ‘not buying’ the Enbridge we see—they may accept a NEW ENBRIDGE –we wait..

The politicos know the cost of ignoring public opinion(it’s the number one issue in a politicians SURVIVAL HANDBOOK!)

An Enbridge Board ‘Operations Safety’ epiphany may still work?

KEYSTONE CONFUSION?

After reading the following—see link  http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Pipeline+decision+time/7800039/story.html  I became confused .
(The Keystone XL oil pipeline is part of a 2700 km  system stretching from Alberta to Texas).
The article tells me-- ‘According to a new study...TransCanada found an alternative route that avoids Nebraska’s .. crucial aquifer..and numerous ecologically sensitive areas in the state....
The article states that “the company (TransCanada)..addressed most every concern raised..agreeing to dozens of special conditions...during the construction,operation and maintenance phases....Finally,TransCanada has committed itself to taking responsibility,technical and financial,for any spills.”
We hear little about Enbridge or Kinder Morgan  and the ‘profiting’ project participants’(oil producers and shippers) agreeing to ‘take financial responsibility for ANY spills.’!  Occasional mumbling is heard by these folks---but no firm commitment to pay for ALL spills! Conveniently,for them, the project participants profit as a group—regardless—but for A DISASTROUS SPILL ,in Burrard Inlet or Douglas Channel, or some remote ‘Kalamazoo like’ swamp land along the pipeline right of way, we’ll likely see a lot of finger pointing happening—leaving BC citizens  to pay for clean up.
That’s what confuses me ..no clarity about a commitment to pay...AND little apparent interest in reducing the probability and consequences of a spill(and unbelievably still ,sticking to Douglas Channel and Burrard Inlet routing).
Unless we hear soon  how  these  wannabe BC pipe liners will protect us from the inevitable screw up—maybe we should look at inviting new proposals? The oil will keep in the ground while we find the right proponent.
We’re happy to assist our cousin provinces to transport their resources to market—so please, cousins,  support us by telling  the pipeline proponents to come up with some sensible schemes—that do not encumber BC residents unfairly.
Seems fair.

TIME FOR COMMON SENSE--PIPE LINERS!

We must REDUCE THE PROBABILITY and minimize consequences of an ‘incident’. HOW?

1.TRAIN:— The Board of Directors must SHOW that training was DEVELOPED and DELIVERED in line with international technical and operating knowledge. Example—the Enbridge Kalamazoo pipe line failure —Were known pipe line system deficiencies addressed adequately and was maintenance and operating field personnel and control room staff training ‘up to snuff’??

The Enbridge Inc. Board of Directors is responsible for the overall STEWARDSHIP;say Enbridge;which means planning and management of ALL resources? Kinder Morgan ,likewise I’d guess.

2.Use COMMON SENSE —see PLANS A and B.

KINDER MORGAN : Proposed scary PLAN A:—Burrard inlet location:
It’s a “Tight squeeze through Second Narrows—”says “North Vancouver oceanographer Peter Baker points out that Port Metro has changed its rules to allow larger tankers, carrying 700,000 barrels of oil, to travel through Second Narrows...see link http://www.georgiastrait.org/files/share/kerSafetyExpertPanel-PB-0v1-61-5July2010-rdx.pdf read this and decide what should be done—lots of room for debate I assume—but the tankers get wider and the Narrows remain narrow.
KINDER MORGAN : PLAN B —Relocate all Kinder Morgan facilities and shipping and to ROBERTS BANK—that’s why Roberts Bank was built—yes we know that a conveyor system could be damaged as happened recently at Westshore terminals—but what about a Burrard Inlet CNR rail bridge damage ‘incident’ and SPILL at Second Narrows??...OR WORSE ?
ENBRIDGE: Proposed scary PLAN A ; Douglas Channel transit .
ENBRIDGE:PLAN B—move OUT of Douglas Channel.
BC citizens should not be asked to bear all the risks without comprehensive disaster insurance scheme in place—!
The BC public needs to see a willingness by the pipe liners to listen and respond—OR
maybe just leave the oil in the ground--until???