11-19-2017, 09:41 AM
|
#201
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
You say that as if I’m opposed to things like double walled pipelines. Do you really expect guy on the internet to write out a detailed and perfected plan for you? What I’m saying is things should be done to continue improving things, which you seem to agree with. But it seems like you’re taking the if we can’t solve all the problems we shouldn’t bother solving any of them approach. If you don’t like any ideas you don’t agree with being put forward, then say so. But quit acting like the status quo and CSA Z662 are the best we can do just because you believe that to be true.
|
Just curious when do you think CSA Z662 was last updated? The time before that?
Where do you get that it's some sort of static document that's been the same way for eons and that the pipeline industry hasn't changed the status quo at all?
Continual improvement happens every single day. It's not good PR, business or politics to pipe your customer's product into places that they don't want them to go.
|
|
|
11-19-2017, 09:49 AM
|
#202
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
|
I can’t believe someone is proposing putting all pipelines above ground with concrete containment trenches as a solution to spill damage. Do you have any concept of environmental footprint here? This latest spill is the size of a football field, what you’re suggesting is orders of magnitude more damaging to the environment.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to burn_this_city For This Useful Post:
|
|
11-19-2017, 11:10 AM
|
#203
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by burn_this_city
I can’t believe someone is proposing putting all pipelines above ground with concrete containment trenches as a solution to spill damage. Do you have any concept of environmental footprint here? This latest spill is the size of a football field, what you’re suggesting is orders of magnitude more damaging to the environment.
|
Who is promoting put all pipelines above ground? When did I suggest that? Go back and read my posts, I gave an example of what could help for above ground or underground portions of pipelines and gave some counterpoints to GGG’s complaints about why it would not work. Making up what my position is and then following it up with arguments against the made up position seems like a pretty useless endeavour.
It’s very interesting to see how many people will downplay the impact of spills and classify them as acceptable.
|
|
|
11-19-2017, 12:59 PM
|
#204
|
Scoring Winger
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
Who is promoting put all pipelines above ground? When did I suggest that? Go back and read my posts, I gave an example of what could help for above ground or underground portions of pipelines and gave some counterpoints to GGG’s complaints about why it would not work. Making up what my position is and then following it up with arguments against the made up position seems like a pretty useless endeavour.
It’s very interesting to see how many people will downplay the impact of spills and classify them as acceptable.
|
If you have a genuine interest in all that is being done to prevent pipeline incidents ,you should take GGG's advice on informing yourself about pipelines, he's given you some really good advice. Many of the regulators have good information on their websites, here's an AER link below.
No one is downplaying anything, no one let alone the operating company wants a leak to occur. If anything pipeline incidents and their impacts are over exaggerated in the media and skewed with misinformation.
No coverage is ever given on the remediation of the spill site, which is monitored for years after a spill. The hundreds of millions to billions of dollars spent on a spill to ensure the site is reclaimed and those impacted are compensated . Have you ever been to a reclaimed site? I suggest you go visit one and see for yourself, the job that they do is extremely diligent.
https://www.aer.ca/data-and-publicat...ne-performance
|
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
|
|
11-20-2017, 09:47 AM
|
#206
|
Franchise Player
|
Big spike in volume and price at 9:10 on TRP this morning. Broke through a downward trendline and broke $50 usd. Might be a bit of insider buying on upcoming news.
|
|
|
11-20-2017, 09:49 AM
|
#207
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
The company will now have to obtain easements from landowners, after securing rights from 90 per cent of landowners along its preferred route. The mainline alternative is also longer which, in additional to other factors, will add to the costs. As well, it is unclear whether the federal approval for the KXL project covers the route approved by the state commission.
|
So it isn't their preferred route. I guess more delays while they secure land additional easements.
|
|
|
11-20-2017, 11:03 AM
|
#208
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsy
If you have a genuine interest in all that is being done to prevent pipeline incidents ,you should take GGG's advice on informing yourself about pipelines, he's given you some really good advice. Many of the regulators have good information on their websites, here's an AER link below.
|
Thanks for the link. I understand where GGG is coming from, we just have a difference as to what is acceptable and what isn’t. I’m not trying to argue that minor spills are just as bad as major ones or that things haven’t gotten better in the industry, I’m just of the opinion that more can be done.
Quote:
No one is downplaying anything, no one let alone the operating company wants a leak to occur. If anything pipeline incidents and their impacts are over exaggerated in the media and skewed with misinformation.
|
I disagree that no one is downplaying anything but agree that there is a lot of misinformation going around from both sides of the argument.
Quote:
No coverage is ever given on the remediation of the spill site, which is monitored for years after a spill. The hundreds of millions to billions of dollars spent on a spill to ensure the site is reclaimed and those impacted are compensated . Have you ever been to a reclaimed site? I suggest you go visit one and see for yourself, the job that they do is extremely diligent.
|
Maybe this can explain my position a little more clearly. I’ve seen and read about a number of remediations. It’s great that these companies are being held accountable and to their credit, doing a good job of remediating the sites. Here’s my issue and why I can’t accept the argument that putting even more money into preventative measures would not be financially viable. Even with the millions or billions of dollars being spent on clean up and remediation many companies are still making billions in profits, so I can’t understand why it unreasonable expect them to put more money towards prevention. They will still be able to operate profitably, while decreasing the likelihood of having to perform a cleanup in the future. Seems like a win win.
I’m not ignorant to the fact that there is a need for oil or the fact the industry isn’t going away anytime soon. I just don’t agree with accepting the status quo. Keep this in mind, when you bring up all the measures that have been put in place and all the work companies have put into mediation(which again in many cases is done exceptionally well) all of that comes from people who are demanding it be done, I don’t think anyone will argue against that. Maybe instead of viewing my position as “these companies aren’t doing good enough” try and see it as “these companies have shown an ability to do great things when pushed and I think they have the potential to do even better”.
I hope that’s reasonable enough.
Thanks again
|
|
|
11-20-2017, 11:12 AM
|
#209
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
Thanks for the link. I understand where GGG is coming from, we just have a difference as to what is acceptable and what isn’t. I’m not trying to argue that minor spills are just as bad as major ones or that things haven’t gotten better in the industry, I’m just of the opinion that more can be done.
I disagree that no one is downplaying anything but agree that there is a lot of misinformation going around from both sides of the argument.
Maybe this can explain my position a little more clearly. I’ve seen and read about a number of remediations. It’s great that these companies are being held accountable and to their credit, doing a good job of remediating the sites. Here’s my issue and why I can’t accept the argument that putting even more money into preventative measures would not be financially viable. Even with the millions or billions of dollars being spent on clean up and remediation many companies are still making billions in profits, so I can’t understand why it unreasonable expect them to put more money towards prevention. They will still be able to operate profitably, while decreasing the likelihood of having to perform a cleanup in the future. Seems like a win win.
I’m not ignorant to the fact that there is a need for oil or the fact the industry isn’t going away anytime soon. I just don’t agree with accepting the status quo. Keep this in mind, when you bring up all the measures that have been put in place and all the work companies have put into mediation(which again in many cases is done exceptionally well) all of that comes from people who are demanding it be done, I don’t think anyone will argue against that. Maybe instead of viewing my position as “these companies aren’t doing good enough” try and see it as “these companies have shown an ability to do great things when pushed and I think they have the potential to do even better”.
I hope that’s reasonable enough.
Thanks again
|
You have this assumption that pipeline companies aren't continually trying to make things better and decrease spills. Why do you think that? Do you think they just are doing things as per usual every time a line is built? There is no new tech? No research going on?
Or do you feel no matter what they do they should do more?
|
|
|
11-20-2017, 11:24 AM
|
#210
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
Thanks smart guy
|
Here's the problem dude.
Any system can be improved, nothing is perfect, so you're applying a standard that can never be met.
You are throwing out your idea of putting pipelines on the surface in some sort of drainage ditch, and using it as an example of why you oppose pipelines until they can be improved. But, that just shows a profound misunderstanding of what would make a safer pipeline, and the current relative safety record of pipelines.
a few issues off the top of my head that would make your "Improved system" wildly more unreliable than current pipelines: (some of these have already been mentioned)
1) increased risk of collision from vehicles/equipment
2) increased corrosion
3) ice and snow causing stress on pipes and causing cracking/ruptures
4) increased hazards for people and animals traveling on, around, or across THOUSANDS of miles of open ditch
If you're going to come into an argument saying you want a better system, at least give a little bit of thought into what a better system might look like, or why you think the current system is so woefully inadequate. Also, probably best not to assume that the people with a vested interest in those pipelines don't want to improve their safety record. Trust me, this is a big focus for everyone in the upstream and midstream part of the business, and no one, especially the ones who are trying to spend a few billion on a new pipeline, are sitting around saying "Meh, good enough".
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN.
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Last edited by Bring_Back_Shantz; 11-20-2017 at 11:31 AM.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bring_Back_Shantz For This Useful Post:
|
|
11-20-2017, 12:34 PM
|
#211
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz
You have this assumption that pipeline companies aren't continually trying to make things better and decrease spills. Why do you think that?
|
I don’t have that assumption.
Quote:
Do you think they just are doing things as per usual every time a line is built? There is no new tech? No research going on?
|
There is proven improvement, I question whether or not it is the best they can do though.
Quote:
Or do you feel no matter what they do they should do more?
|
There is only so much that can be done about anything. My issue is that these companies are making these efforts because they are being forced to do so. The reason these regulations came into existence was because for a long time there was no accountability. So while I applaud their efforts to address the issues and the costs associated with those efforts, I’m not convinced that everything that can be done is being done. With the money that these companies make I just don’t by the argument that more can’t be done, or that the increased costs would make certain measures financially unviable.
|
|
|
11-20-2017, 12:37 PM
|
#212
|
Franchise Player
|
I would think the last thing a pipeline company wants is a spill. Lost income from the line being down, horrible publicity, cleanup costs...what makes you think they aren't doing their best, within reason, not because of regulations but because it makes sense for the company?
|
|
|
11-20-2017, 12:48 PM
|
#213
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
I would think the last thing a pipeline company wants is a spill. Lost income from the line being down, horrible publicity, cleanup costs...what makes you think they aren't doing their best, within reason, not because of regulations but because it makes sense for the company?
|
Why would we need regulations if that was why they did it?
There are definitely business and political reasons for why they would want safer pipelines, however there are also business reasons for why they would be inlclined to choose cost over performance.
They are doing things to make things better, I’m not denying that. Are they doing all that they can? Maybe. Is it possible they’re not? Also maybe.
Until someone can definitively say it’s impossible for them to do more, I will continue to challenge them to do better. I’m not saying no new pipelines until they do X, I’m saying the companies should continue to be scrutinized until the issue is addressed to a level where we can comfortably say all is being done. Obviously we can’t test new technology without building new pipelines, so we don’t improve without trying.
|
|
|
11-20-2017, 01:01 PM
|
#214
|
Franchise Player
|
I think it's fair to say there is plenty of scrutinizing going on in the pipeline business right now, and if there was more they could reasonably do to improve safety, they would be doing it for the PR alone. I just don't think the industry operates in the way you think it does. Not in the past 10 years, anyway.
|
|
|
11-20-2017, 01:52 PM
|
#216
|
Franchise Player
|
Great news.
Now let's see Trudeau get off his butt and get us to the west coast so we're not totally beholden to the US
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
|
|
|
11-20-2017, 02:45 PM
|
#217
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
Here's the problem dude.
Any system can be improved, nothing is perfect, so you're applying a standard that can never be met.
You are throwing out your idea of putting pipelines on the surface in some sort of drainage ditch, and using it as an example of why you oppose pipelines until they can be improved. But, that just shows a profound misunderstanding of what would make a safer pipeline, and the current relative safety record of pipelines.
a few issues off the top of my head that would make your "Improved system" wildly more unreliable than current pipelines
|
I really hope this is the last time that I have to clarify this. I am in no way arguing to bring existing pipelines above ground, or to build all or any new pipelines above ground. I gave an example of a potential measure that could help in one area and some posters felt that I was advocating for something that I wasn’t. Also I haven’t been opposing building new pipelines until they are 100% safe, because to be frank that will never happen. I’m simply advocating to continue to put pressure on the companies building pipelines to ensure that they are looking out for everyone’s best interest.
|
|
|
11-20-2017, 03:22 PM
|
#218
|
evil of fart
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
I really hope this is the last time that I have to clarify this. I am in no way arguing to bring existing pipelines above ground, or to build all or any new pipelines above ground. I gave an example of a potential measure that could help in one area and some posters felt that I was advocating for something that I wasn’t. Also I haven’t been opposing building new pipelines until they are 100% safe, because to be frank that will never happen. I’m simply advocating to continue to put pressure on the companies building pipelines to ensure that they are looking out for everyone’s best interest.
|
lol, there's plenty of pressure. Could they ever get to a point where you would say, "okay, they've done everything they can reasonably be expected to do; let's move on to other concerns"? Of course not, because you're not educated on the industry as it is currently and are not going to educate yourself. But you'll be happy to continue questioning it.
You're the guy that just wants to "question" things without listening to the answers. Like the guy who questions vaccines. Or fluoride in the water. Etc.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
|
|
11-20-2017, 03:25 PM
|
#219
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
I really hope this is the last time that I have to clarify this. I am in no way arguing to bring existing pipelines above ground, or to build all or any new pipelines above ground. I gave an example of a potential measure that could help in one area and some posters felt that I was advocating for something that I wasn’t. Also I haven’t been opposing building new pipelines until they are 100% safe, because to be frank that will never happen. I’m simply advocating to continue to put pressure on the companies building pipelines to ensure that they are looking out for everyone’s best interest.
|
If you had stated this in the first place we could have saved pages of arguments. In particular it was this post that set everything off the rails.
Quote:
I’m not satisfied with the idea of building a pipeline where the same issue can occur, I think that’s an irresponsible approach. The response time was good, but there should be better preventative measures put in place. I don’t like when oil companies promote how unnoticeable their pipelines look, to me this is a smokescreen sales pitch. Knowing with any pipeline there is a risk of a spill, a solution such as a concrete storm drain style “gutter” system running under pipeplines that may not be as esthetically pleasing to the eyes and may cost more to build yet will also mitigate or potentially eliminate environmental impact during a spill, makes a lot more sense to me than focusing on saving money and making it look “nice”.
|
In particular the bolded, leaks like the one we just saw are a consequence of pipelines existing. I do think your latest statement is fairly reasonable.
Last edited by GGG; 11-20-2017 at 03:31 PM.
|
|
|
11-20-2017, 03:40 PM
|
#220
|
Scoring Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flamenspiel
|
You'll want to wait until Keystone XL actually gets built before you want to declare that. Lawsuits are incoming for Keystone XL.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:14 AM.
|
|