Victoria Pipeline Demonsration

As for the Victoria Demonstration--it was a start...

There are millions of miles of pipe lines and more millions will be built—transporting all types of commodities—Yes, diluted bitumen(Dilbit)can be nasty—ala the Kalamazoo fiasco—no we don’t want that stuff on our coast,whether by a Kinder Morgan shipping incident in Burrard Inlet—or a severely damaged oil tanker in Douglas Channel—will our concerns be reduced if the pipeline terminates in an open harbour location near Prince Rupert (not Kitimat)—

Or,could we be appeased if we see Enbridge making a quick ‘owning up’ and including a specific,believable ,published commitment to “DO IT Right”

It’s little to ask—Enbridge wants to operate and PROFIT in B.C.—so,please listen !

What then is this demonstration ‘all about’? Probably it’s as much a concern about who’s building the line and who will operate it?—

The inability of the Enbridge to change such an obvious ‘mistake’ as locating the shipping terminal in Kitimat and then fudging their online graphic which showed a Douglas Channel with ,surprise,NO ISLANDS(that’s NOT OUR Douglas Channel!)—

Trying to bribe us, in the 11th hour, with sudden $500,000,000.00 safety ‘top up’ after the NTSB Kalamazoo report fallout—

 Enbridge’s apparent inability to show any obvious attempt at changing their culture is disappointing..

Not much room to maneuver or time left—I’d guess the loyal Enbridge political friends are getting nervous—the citizens are suspicious –let’s see their PLAN .

Enbridge,convince us,please.

Kinder Morgan very scary plan

 

The Kinder Morgan Very Scary Plan

We hear lots of debate about the Enbridge pipeline and the loading terminal in Kitimat—also great concern expressed about mega oil tankers wiggling their way through the narrow channels between the many small islands in Douglas Channel---

BUT we hear little from the local media and governments(local and provincial) expressing concern about huge bitumen laden tankers ‘sailing through Burrard Inlet’ past cruise ships,ferries,cargo ships,pleasure craft,etc.—This is just not a problem it seems---!

What am I missing?

I would think that the entire Kinder Morgan facilities and the Chevron refinery should be relocated to more sensible site and build the crude tanker loading terminal at Roberts Bank(WHERE IT BELONGS).

Recall that Bill Vander Zalm in his heyday wanted to locate the, then, 4 refineries to one combined/larger facility in the Fraser valley?—still makes sense.

Or we can do nothing—just let KM do their thing,unchallenged –we must collectively start screaming NOW or suffer the consequences.

Then we could look forward to black GOOEY BEACHES at places such as Jericho, Spanish Bank, Kitsilano, Ambleside, Wreck, Second and Third, and Centennial and elsewhere. You fortunate water front property owners in West Vancouver,Pont Grey,etc. should excited about such an EVENT! Maybe KM’ super tanker carrier owners could enlighten us about clean up procedures—the folks in Alaska could assist you in estimating how many decades the GOO would prevail.

Just thought I’d be helpful.

Wake up BICers

See this news item from the Vancouver Sun

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/history+September+1973/7294276/story.html

and then try to tell me this won’t happen –again! That mess in 1973 resulted from a relative ‘thimble full’ of fuel oil---imagine a hundred thousand barrels of bitumen !

The KINDER MORGAN(KM) pipe line damage in Burnaby a few years back makes one wonder how much the shippers and pipe liners have learned?

True,there were several parties involved in that Burnaby incident--- The Canadian Transportation Safety Board (TSB) report http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/pipeline/2007/p07h0040/p07h0040.asp suggests that none of the parties were blameless. Point: things happen! ‘The best laid plans oft’ go awry’. What to do then?

Decrease—don’t INCREASE, the potential for more incidents in Burrard Inlet!

1.Move all Kinder Morgan shipping and storage facilities out of Burrard Inlet—take the tanker loading to Roberts Bank,where it belongs. Less marine traffic equals less potential !

2.And move the KM storage tanks to the Fraser valley—Kinder Morgan already have a right–of-way for their pipeline traversing the Fraser Valley (to supply the Anacortes refinery in Washington State oil refinery).Possibly relocate the Chevron refinery to the same location?

All of us Burrard Inlet Community residents(BICres) need to demand that our community leaders ,Premier Clark and Stephen Harper tell these Kinder Morgan folks about the RULES for doing business and profiting in our neighbourhood.

It’s simple—we want Kinder Morgan to listen and do the sensible thing-

Start writing your letters to your favourite reporter,Councilor,MLA, or MP—yes, even Christy and Stephen would love to hear from their potential voters--eh?

Oil is to blame!--shut down all pipelines--NOW!

A recent Ottawa Citizen editorial headline told us that ‘CLIMATE CHANGE IS UPON US’ and went on to tell us --

“We expect to see to more extreme weather events”—photos of washed out roads in Wawa,Ontario were included!

Is that so? Tell us where it’ll occur ,and when and how ‘extreme’ please—it’s a good thing that we have those smarter folks in Ottawa to warn us of these pending disasters...much like the 2005 Katrina ‘crystal ball gazers’ telling us to expect more Katrinas—soon! I don’t recollect any new Katrinas—climate change keeps changing--seems to be so unpredictable!

Wikipedia tells us that Sandy was the 84th serious weather incident ,in the New York state,New England area,since 1700 ---there was one in 1938 that claimed 600 lives—Sandy,sadly 90+ lives.

While interesting stuff,I don’t believe the washed out roads in Wawa ,Ontario will be mentioned in Wikipedia—damn—and such a good photo!

The editorial went on “if we stand around while weather patterns evolve-- ”there will be serious implications " . OK, now we know what’s coming –would these experts please tell us what to do.

Maybe we should hold hands and jump up and down—something like that is ‘bound’ to help—No! (just trying to be helpful.)

We’re also told that ‘Canada has recently committed $150 million aimed at better understanding...climate change’--- Let’s wait for the study—and would the ‘editor who contributed this piece please offer their services’ to Stephen Harper.

In the 70’s we we were told to prepare for the ‘coming ice age’—then in the 90’s it was ‘global warming’—then we became unsure ,so let’s call it ‘climate change’---I wish the IPCC and David Suzuki would make up my mind!

Who pays for next big screwup??

First fix a few things then assure us that you'll pay fir next big mess!

“A) Assurance

There is just ONE project and 4 participants—the pipelines, terminals,ships and oil producers.

NONE of these ‘PROFITERS’ wants to bear the consequences of the ‘big disaster’ which we all fear—

Disaster insurance by the those in the oil patch and associated industries could be a fair way to improve how disasters are paid for—those paying the premiums would be self examiners;the insurer would perform the ‘due diligence’ to evaluate the capability of the insured——the ‘deductible’ obviously would be a function performance record. Result;better built and managed facilities—I know,such disaster insurance is not a subject for this lay person.—Companies and corporations know all the tricks to minimize liability—the 4 project participants need to convince us, in BC, that THEY give a damn –Tell us that “We ,collectively,propose to deal with the consequences of the inevitable DISASTER and this is what we propose...!”

Disasters happen in spite of best efforts—

HUMAN factors ; inadequate training—negligence ---drugs and alcohol –hanky panky –fatigue --sabotage--sudden severe illness—revenge--bribery

NATURAL factors—severe weather,flood,erosion, earthquake,tsunami,etc..

TECHNICAL issues—aging material--obsolescence--design flaws--unpredicted/ changing operating conditions--inadequate maintenance/inspection,etc..

AND OTHER  stuff!

All that we can ask is that the project participants convince us that they wish to be good neighbors and show a willingness to REDUCE THE PROBABILITY of a severe incident in our neighborhood..

B) Project Physical Changes;

1.ENBRIDGE move your terminal to an outside port location—out of Douglas Channel

and

2. KINDER MORGAN—move your terminal and shipping out of Burrard Inlet—

Yes,ENBRIDGE and KINDER MORGAN you CAN and MUST do these basic ‘things’ –a SENSIBLE START for gaining public support--

British Columbia beaches and wilderness shores could ruined for decades—then where would our cousins form Alberta go to play..?

Come on Alison and Christy help bring these projects to fruition.

It’s not too late—to do it right!”

BC Enbridge/Kinder morgan Pipeline Dilemma

Enbridge and Kinder Morgan pipeline projects—there are 3 ‘parts’—but 2 parts are missing!

Part 1. the PIPELINE –receives due process.

The (NEB )Hearings formula is imperfect—but it can work! .. we’ll see?

Part 2. LARGE CRUDE OIL TANKERS: No public hearing ?

--see some of Mr. Wagner’s testimony at recent(Sep 2) Joint Review panel in Kitimat ,B.C.. .. excerpts from pages 6,7,8,9 of https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/livelink.exe/fetch/2000/90464/90552/384192/620327/628981/632175/A1U3D8_-_ThuSep2.10_-_Vol_5?nodeid=632203&vernum=0 )

“2480. Enbridge has stated many times in this proposal .... at meetings....... and in the media that their involvement with crude oil ENDS at the Kitimat terminal.

“2481.

“The project proponents have “no connection” to the shipping—they keep telling us—so how is the public to be satisfied..which government body will ‘approve’ the shipping component of these projects ?”

Part 3. the TERMINALS---the public has no say?

There exists a ship loading terminal and related facilities REVIEW process (TERMPOL)-- carried out behind closed doors?

Some of Mr. Wagner’s testimony

“2468. There’s no input or overview from opponents, no cross-examination of people and organizations under oath,--- ...”

Dr. Gerald Graham comments similarly ; see http://bcmarine.blogspot.ca/2006/08/time-to-termmpinate-terol.html “Another problem with the (Termpol) process is that it is basically conducted in secret. The documentation the proponent is tasked with furnishing is kept confidential, with the public not having any access to it ...

-we have due process for PIPELINES and ; should be OK—

-the SHIPPING will be discussed in secret—

-and the TERMINAL has a behind closed door review.

While most of us are greatly concerned about the oil tankers—’don’t worry , be happy’ –the smart folks in the backrooms will look after the peasants concerns—you know the old saying “ I’m from the government—I’m here to help”.

—comforting eh?

Carl Shalansky,P. Eng.(retired)

3359 Redfern Place

North Vancouver,B.C.,v7n3w2

604 9864657

bin there dun that

Kitimat

( the following consists of excerpts from http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/Geoscience/MapPlace/thematicmaps/OffshoreMapGallery/Documents/West-Coast-Oil-Port-Inquiry-Statement-of-Proceedings.pdf )

“MY Terms of Reference authorize me to inquire into the

environmental, social and navigational safety aspects of

oil port proposals and the general public concerns about

oil tanker traffic on the west coast of Canada. ..... many ordinary citizens of this province are apprehensive.

So far fears about oil spills on this coast are

based mostly on fictional scenarios,

.... These fears are nonetheless real. Moreover, I

cannot now set these concerns at rest, because I have not

been satisfied thus far that a major oil spill in British

Columbia coastal waters is unlikely or without the potential

for catastrophic consequences.

Because these concerns about a major oil spill cannot be

dismissed, this Inquiry is not merely about the mitigation

of adverse environmental, social, and navigational safety

impacts -- it is about whether an oil port should be

built at all!

A unique aspect of the west coast oil port proposals is

that all the benefits are seen to flow outside the province.

Only the risks remain.

...Certainly, the crude oil which would be imported through Kitimat is not

required for British Columbia. Nor do the proponent

companies include any Canadian needs in their projections.

If the final assessment, after all the experts have been

heard, is that oil spill damage may be catastrophic,

British Columbians will expect other Canadians to respect

their right to say NO!

(iii) Conclusions

If an oil port is established at Kitimat there will

inevitably be oil spills on the adjacent coast of British Columbia.”

The West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry was set up in March 1977 specifically to investigate the Kitimat proposal.

... On 23 February 1978, the Government of Canada determined that there is "no need for a west coast oil port now or in the foreseeable future..

....will we luck out, again