Mulcair expresses misgivings about Keystone XL pipeline during U.S. visit

[Azure]

Ah yes the old 'we are doomed, shut it all down' approach.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Interesting point, have any research that shows that there are more rail spills than pipeline?

I think more spills by rail (but less quantity in the splill)

less spills by pipe but a larger quantity is spilled

[Ducay]

Northern Gateway came at the worst time for pipelines; it is both desperately needed, and vehemently opposed (or is "cool" topic for people to hate).

Whatevers, rail is in place and increasing capacity everyday, but all it'll take is a couple more good spills and pipelines will look fantastic. Sad but true.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

I think more spills by rail (but less quantity in the splill)

less spills by pipe but a larger quantity is spilled

Basically.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/05...n_3273725.html

The question though, is when rail is asked to ship 10 times what they're shipping today because the public is too stupid to understand pipelines, whether they can maintain their incident and spill rates that they do today.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by fotze

Listening to our company's president, the prevailing thought among the long chin cigar smokers is that it is going to be pretty much impossible to build (NEW) lines across both Canada and the US and companies are already preparing for it. Rail is the where everyone is looking now.

A shame they can't just say "no" and not waste 8 years of farting around.

The next big waste of time will be the LPG and Natgas lines to Kitimat that will eventually and inevitably be denied.

The lawyers and 'studies' industries will make some good money though.

Why do you say this?

Everyone knew N gateway was doomed. Also, it's opposition is being funded by American special interest groups through charitable contributions.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Interesting point, have any research that shows that there are more rail spills than pipeline?

One quick search declared pipelines the safest form of transportation:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ir_17.htm

This table is the one that they draw conclusions from

[Mr.Coffee]

I'm not sure the Federal government can even bulldoze this thing through. First Nations claims on land would block that, and in event the government tried to pretend they wouldn't, they'd get sued and this would be tied up in Supreme court taking forever. There would happily be groups willing to fund that legal battle, too.

[Knut]

I support Alberta becoming a coastal province. How can we cleave BC from the rest of the continent ??

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by kirant

One quick search declared pipelines the safest form of transportation:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ir_17.htm

This table is the one that they draw conclusions from

Did you read the link I posted above? If you did, you might not have posted your chart. That chart has been making the rounds and those stats are the bread and butter argument of the pro-pipeline people. But it's wrong. I'll post the link again:

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/colu...9bb2963f4.html

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Azure

Ah yes the old 'we are doomed, shut it all down' approach.

That is the approach of James Hansen. Head of the NASA Goddard Institute. Elected to the National Academy of Science, recipient of the Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal, Stephen H. Schneider Award, Dan David Prize as well as recognized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He has said that if Keystone goes ahead, it is "game over for the planet".

I'll repost HIS TED talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hanse...te_change.html

[MelBridgeman]

It's too bad Greenpeace and other environmental groups don't use their funding (Greenpeace's annual funding is more than quarter of a billion a year) to fun green industry like carbon capture, solar industry, tree planting, alt energy ect...instead they blow money paying salaries, funding political parties,lobbyist, jetting professional activist to the latest protest, tv/print/internet ads, billboards and stunts like scaling the calgary tower. Until then to me those groups are also part of the problem - which is doing nothing.

We are talking billions of dollars over the last decade or so that has really done nothing. Take some leadership and stop letting your political idealism get in the way of helping actually find solutions.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by LouCypher

Ive read a few times over the past month or two that the NWT and Yukon have both been kicking the tires on pipelines running from Alberta. From the sounds of things I think it is the better route to go. Cut BC out of the equation. Then BC can claim its moral victory while also not seeing a dime or any of the economic benefit.

Well I don't know why the Yukon would be involved, they have a tiny section of land on the ocean and there is nothing there (except for an old abandoned whaling post called Hershel Island). The NWT is more plausible I suppose but as a previous poster brought up, why not just ship it to Churchill? I live in BC and I have a feeling this thing will go through eventually.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Interesting point, have any research that shows that there are more rail spills than pipeline?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...s-by-rail.html

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

That is the approach of James Hansen. Head of the NASA Goddard Institute. Elected to the National Academy of Science, recipient of the Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal, Stephen H. Schneider Award, Dan David Prize as well as recognized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He has said that if Keystone goes ahead, it is "game over for the planet".

I'll repost HIS TED talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hanse...te_change.html

You do realize of course that with or without Keystone emissions from countries like China and India will keep increasing?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Azure

You do realize of course that with or without Keystone emissions from countries like China and India will keep increasing?

The money comes from the anti-keystone lobby

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Did you read the link I posted above? If you did, you might not have posted your chart. That chart has been making the rounds and those stats are the bread and butter argument of the pro-pipeline people. But it's wrong. I'll post the link again:

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/colu...9bb2963f4.html

It was 12:30 AM for me when I posted. Take a guess as to what I read

Interesting data though. I'm not sure it completely invalidates the data, since you can still calculate out the variance. Even if we use the updated "apples to apples" incident rate of 195, it's still a higher rate of Hazmat incident compared to the use of pipeline (mental math suggests it's about ~5 vs .89 still).

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

It's too bad Greenpeace and other environmental groups don't use their funding (Greenpeace's annual funding is more than quarter of a billion a year) to fun green industry like carbon capture, solar industry, tree planting, alt energy ect...instead they blow money paying salaries, funding political parties,lobbyist, jetting professional activist to the latest protest, tv/print/internet ads, billboards and stunts like scaling the calgary tower. Until then to me those groups are also part of the problem - which is doing nothing.

We are talking billions of dollars over the last decade or so that has really done nothing. Take some leadership and stop letting your political idealism get in the way of helping actually find solutions.

Love the logic (or lack thereof) in this post.

An old trick, try to make the environmentalists the problem. Just so stupid. Yes the reason we're not getting anywhere on climate is because of the environmentalists!

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Azure

Ah yes the old 'we are doomed, shut it all down' approach.

Who said that?

I said we need to wind it down not ramp it up. That's consistent with every single climate policy, climate scientist, energy policy wonk out there.

Even the International Energy Agency, the World Bank, the IMF, major banks are all saying, investment in fossil fuel infrastructure needs to decline starting now.

And yes, we are headed for disaster, you can choose to ignore it, but just be clear that's based on total ignorance to the problem not to any kind of nuanced or educated opinion.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Love the logic (or lack thereof) in this post.

An old trick, try to make the environmentalists the problem. Just so stupid. Yes the reason we're not getting anywhere on climate is because of the environmentalists!

Ah yes sticks and stones response - Do you care to comment with some substance..

[Tinordi]

It's entirely untrue, first alot of environmental movement/NGOs fund partnership projects for clean energy technology.

Second, these groups are not well funded as you claim. They have endowments that allow them to have operating revenue but they are non-profit outfits. They could blow their wad in one swoop, say $200 million on CCS. By the way, the Gov of Alberta has already spent over that on CCS over the past 5 years with zero projects yet to show for it.

So how on earth would that be an effective use of money, instead of say, using that money to engage in advocacy and policy work that will deploy those technologies at a broad scale?

Seriously, that point is just moronic.