Wednesday, February 02, 2011

NO Pipelines, NO Tankers, NO Social Programs!

BC, land of the free to be hypocritical. Their greenies are protesting a pipeline to Kitimat BC because, well, just because. Okay, they are worried about oil spills from the pipeline. Do they know that a pipeline from Alberta to Vancouver has existed for over 50 years, without a spill?

As a matter of fact, even the far left Tyee, has an article that shows an increase in oil tanker traffic from Vancouver. Do the people living in Vancouver know that a oil pipeline runs under the city? One or two commentators show some common sense:

blackie

There's an appalling lack of knowledge about what that hated pipeline system actually does (and has been doing now for about 50 years), and what would happen in the Lower Mainland if it were suddenly shut down (as so many of you seem to be arguing).

1. It transports crude oil to the one remaining refinery in the Lower Mainland (there used to be four). Shut down the line, and that refinery either closes and lays everyone off, or starts importing oil in tankers (which is how it happened before they built the pipeline.)

2. It transports in batches gasoline, diesel, jet fuel etc -- all refined products -- sold in the Lower Mainland. Shut the system down, and you can put all the cars and the buses up on blocks and get your bicycles out (don't forget the snow tires). The alternative is to ship much much more of that stuff in tankers on the highways -- all the way from Edmonton. Think that's safer?

3. Yes, it ships some crude offshore in tankers, and more of it every year. No tanker spills yet. If Dogwood and First Nations opposed to the Kitimat line succeed (I think they will) then you can expect even more crude (triple, in fact) to come down the line to Vancouver. Why? Hands up all those who think it's a good idea to sell oil only to the US.

I know, you don't want Canada to sell ANY oil to ANYONE. Well, good luck with all those great social programs you like.

Funny how the opposition are yapping about no oil tankers on the west coast when they have been there for years. They also don't want a pipeline to Kitimat because the pipeline might burst or something. It's a plain case of blackmail. The environmentalists and First Nations are blackmailing the oil companies and Canadians by their lawsuits and protests. If they persist, look at what Alberta can do:

We can send it right on down to Seattle or Portland or any other destination that already has existing pipelines. Oh, my goodness, we might even be able to send that tar sands oil to eastern Canada. LOOK, we already have pipelines going to Winnipeg and Ottawa. Yikes how did that happen? Real pipelines sending real oil all across Canada and the US with no big spills. You lefties better get those pipelines shut down tomorrow because it is obviously too dangerous in high density areas. Seriously, shut them down! Stop all oil tankers from docking at the Vancouver and Halifax harbours, NOW!

In Ottawa on Tuesday, a group of environmentalists, first nations and Opposition Members of Parliament called for a West Coast ban on oil tanker traffic. Such a ban would kill the Enbridge project.
Hey lefties don't forget the East Coast too, you don't want to appear to be hypocrites do you? Oh, I forgot the Irvings OWN the east coast and they love blood oil, not Alberta's ethical oil. Talk about a monopoly that should be investigated. Suck it up sweethearts, you are blackmailing Canadian taxpayers, and we will not stand for it anymore. Stop the pipeline if you want, we will send our oil to Seattle, and they can gain the employment benefits, or Billings Montana, then we won't have to deal with BC at all.

NO pipelines, NO tankers, NO social programs!

11 comments:

CanadianSense said...

You don't expect the MSM to present an evidence based report do you?

The MSM would rather talk about protest, a few dead ducks than the real costs to business, jobs and our economy from the behaviour of the noisy minority demanding their payola.

UsualSuspect said...

No spill? Not entire true. A couple years back, a city contractor put a backhoe shovel through the Kinder Morgan pipe and the spill contaminated a residential neighbohood.

I agree with most everything you wrot beyond that.

Powell lucas said...

There already is a crude oil pipeline to the refineries in Sarnia, Ontario. The fact that the eastern refiners choose to use imported oil and pay an $11.00 per barrel premium is up to them. There is also a pipeline to the refinery and tanker facilities in Anacortes Washington.

Alex said...

If their ultimate goal is to never be taken seriously again then I wish them the best of luck.

maryT said...

A city contractor putting a backhoe thru a pipeline is not a spill. It is a stupid accident.
Are those idiots wanting these pipelines stopped, and no oil or gas going to Vancouver or BC planning on applying for a license to run a rickshaw service to get people around.
Oh, with no heat or power, are they going to work in the dark, candlelight.
With no gas or diesel, how do they expect supplies to get to stores.
They remind me of a young girl years ago who said, we don't need ranchers, we have safeways to get our meat.
What is that saying, stupid is as stupid does.

liberal supporter said...

Our way or the highway eh, you silly separatist?

The northern coast of BC is much more treacherous than the south around Vancouver or Juan de Fuca strait. Much more dangerous than the east coast too. Look at the current forecast, for example. Gale warnings are common in the north.

But good luck trying to change the channel from "let's keep the tankers away from the north coast" to "let's not have any oil at all". Do you still think anyone falls for that kind of misrepresentation?

hunter said...

You know LS, reading what you write just gives me a really slimy feeling. My nose turns up and I can smell rotten eggs. It's the typical deceit that Liberal use to blame everybody but themselves for their miserable lives. Why are all Liberals angry, unhappy people that have to attack everyone who does not agree with them?

Juan de Fuca? Rough, rough waters, always. Isn't that how the massive tankers come in now? How do those Alaskan tankers get to Seattle? I guess you think it's better to have a pipeline through a community of over a million people than a pipeline through wilderness country. My bet is that the lefties didn't even know that pipelines even existed in Vancouver. Now they have to change their outcry to the "northern" coast. Get real. Stop being idiots.

MONSTER said...

Now Hunter, don`t hold it in tell us how you really feel:). Having some experience with pipelines I have found that any leaks are easily detected, isolated and the impact is much less then say a train derailment. Pipe lines are the most efficent and safe way to transport gas or oil.

hunter said...

Monster, I'm a pussy cat! An opinionated one, but cats are known for their independent attitudes. It's what keeps Alberta honest.

liberal supporter said...

You know LS, reading what you write just gives me a really slimy feeling. My nose turns up and I can smell rotten eggs.
That is the smell of your whole premise collapsing after I refuted it.


It's the typical deceit that Liberal use to blame everybody but themselves for their miserable lives. Why are all Liberals angry, unhappy people that have to attack everyone who does not agree with them?
Perhaps you should cut and paste the "liberals are evil" rant when you have something to actually react to. But thank you for agreeing with my points, you would have argued against them otherwise, instead of going ad hominem.

Juan de Fuca? Rough, rough waters, always. Isn't that how the massive tankers come in now?
Why not ask your husband, who you say came from PEI, about navigation, underwater hazards, reefs, the wind tunnel effect of nearby shores, and such boring things before you claim that Juan de Fuca is just as dangerous as threading your way through the Queen Charlottes on the way to Kitimat? But if you checked your facts, well, you wouldn't be hunter now would you?

How do those Alaskan tankers get to Seattle?
They travel through the Pacific Ocean, 60 to 100 MILES west of the Queen Charlottes. The water is kind of deep out there, nothing to run aground on once they get out of Prince William Sound. You do know that Prince William Sound is where the Exxon Valdez ran aground, don't you? There are reefs and other hazards there, which you can easily hit in a vessel that requires a full MILE to stop.

I guess you think it's better to have a pipeline through a community of over a million people than a pipeline through wilderness country.
Makes little difference. I know you'd love to change the channel to be about pipelines, but it isn't about pipelines themselves. But since there is no plan to put a pipeline to China, the pipeline ends someplace, and the crude from that pipeline gets loaded into a very large crude carrier (tanker ship). So ending it where the tanker is less likely to run aground when getting out into the ocean is better. As Monster points out, pipelines are monitored and leaks are quickly detected and fixed. It's probably better near civilization than in wilderness, since it is likely a leak will be noticed much more quickly and thereby fixed faster and the product loss reduced.

My bet is that the lefties didn't even know that pipelines even existed in Vancouver.
I did. There's a refinery there for one thing. I'm sure there are people who you would like to quote as being the "lefty" position, such as maryt's hilarious example of the person who didn't realize meat at Safeway comes from ranches. But I don't blame you, it's too much work to deal with someone like me who demolishes your sillier arguments.


Now they have to change their outcry to the "northern" coast.
It always been about the "northern" coast, specifically the area around the Queen Charlotte Islands. The "tanker exclusion zone" has been all about the northern coast, at least according to the Canadian Coastguard. Notice the date on that article is in 1998.

Get real. Stop being idiots.
Took the words right out of my mouth.

Hahahahahahahahaha!

MONSTER said...

Hey LS,just a few items that I wish to set you straight on. I won`t comment on the weather or currents on the left coast being a prarie boy myself.Though I do have to wonder why grain shipments from Prince Rupert have been going on for so many years yet I can`t remember the last time a grain transport went down. You seem to know the sea. Help me out here.
Dumb old me, I looked at a map and in my landlubber way just sort of had it occur that going from Prince William Sound further off shore is the shortest and most cost efficent route to take.
Having uncovered many a pipe line in my career (have to post some pics on my site) I can tell you that it is always a bit of a pucker up undertaking. Heavy emphasis on the undertaking part.Cause if you screw up your gonna meet him. Much rather do it in the bush. Equipment and crew can be on site either from access roads or down the right of way in fairly short order.O/T pipe line R.O.Ws are reclaimed with a seed mixture that has a lot of red clover. Ruffed grouse love that stuff.A R.O.W is the best hunting for these tasty little chickens.
Back to topic.In a built up area not only do you generaly have to deal with a deeper dig, there are also other lines and utilitys that have to be contended with. As a rule in the city the lines will all run in a single corridor. Plus people around.
Pipe line in Vancouver? How about Los Angeles being the third largest producing oil field in the US. They just hide the pumps and wells.
I`d have more issue with Victoria`s ocean dumping sewage pipe than I would with a product line through the bush.
Hope this helps you LS.