U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-25-2018, 10:14 PM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 11,130,951 times
Reputation: 3738

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post

Bitumen is more toxic than any other petroleum product because of the benzene, toluene, hexane and other industrial thinners mixed into it to dilute it so it will flow through pipelines. It's not possible to breathe the air near a spill without being overcome by the vapours, and the vapours are blinding. If you get it on your skin it raises blisters or worse. Nothing living nearby and no industry can recover from such a catastrophic event if we have an ocean spill. And nothing can guarantee that it won't happen, and only one happenstance will be enough to destroy the west coast.
There is already a pipeline transporting bitumen to this area. It has been doing this from what I know for what 60 years. The threat has already been there and has there been fire and brimstone since? I get that this will increase risk because it'll triple capacity and increase tanker traffic through the Burrard Straight but as I said, we already have a precedent for this that has been happening for a long time - the world hasn't ended.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
Alberta wants all of BC, 5 million people plus all of the provinces' rich resources, to willingly walk into a potential gas oven and then sit there and wait for somebody to light a match so the whole province can go BOOM, GONE! And nobody else seems to understand the consequences or to give a damn about the fact that BC contributes to the economy of the rest of Canada too and if all of that contribution comes to a complete halt because of a single big spill it can be devastating for the entire country. One spill is all it will take.

And now Notley is making good on her March 8th threat that if BC doesn't knuckle under to Alberta's demands then Alberta will decrease or completely cut off the amount of Alberta refined oil and gasoline that BC needs for itself. They've already started on that and BC now has the very highest gasoline prices in all of Canada.

This is all one big FUBAR'ed mess. Just sickening. I'm starting to wish that all of Alberta's tar sands region would catch on fire with the next big forest fire that happens there and it can all go BOOM so Alberta wouldn't have to worry about how to get rid of their damned filthy toxic garbage sludge that nobody but China wants so that China can make more plastic waste for Asian countries and cruise ships to throw away into the ocean.
I don't think there is anyone in Canada who wishes any sort of environmental catastrophe in B.C to happen. That said, what you just said about wishing the tar sands regions catching fire and going BOOM just amazes me. Like WOW.. There is no poster in the Cad forums who has made me as speechless about a topic concerning our nation as you just did with that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-26-2018, 12:15 AM
 
Location: British Columbia ♥ 🍁 ♥
7,216 posts, read 6,570,009 times
Reputation: 14141
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
There is already a pipeline transporting bitumen to this area. It has been doing this from what I know for what 60 years. The threat has already been there and has there been fire and brimstone since? I get that this will increase risk because it'll triple capacity and increase tanker traffic through the Burrard Straight but as I said, we already have a precedent for this that has been happening for a long time - the world hasn't ended..............

There are no pipelines carrying bitumen to the west coast (nor anywhere else across Canada to the best of my knowledge - it is very dangerous stuff). I don't know where you got the idea that there was but that does demonstrate that many people probably don't actually know what is flowing through all the pipelines in Canada.

Kinder Morgan's Transmountain Pipeline is the one you're thinking of (and the one being protested) it has always carried both crude oil and refined petroleum products to Burnaby BC. No Bitumen. However the new pipeline they are proposing to run parallel to it is the one that would be intended to carry bitumen which is much more dangerous. Three times more bitumen than the amount of crude and refined oils that are presently being piped. https://www.kindermorgan.com/busines...smountain.aspx

There have already been several crude oil spills on land from the Kinder Morgan pipelines, including one that happened on land in a residential neighbourhood in Burnaby right by the water. That particular spill was a pipeline that burst underground, split a hole through the pavement in the middle of the street and the crude oil geysered up out of the street and fountained 70 feet up into the air. The geyser sprayed the oil all over the houses and gardens on that street, ran into storm drains and flowed down the street and sidewalks and down the greenbelt hillside into the water of Burrard Inlet. The entire neighbourhood had to be evacuated for many days because of toxic vapours while it was being cleaned up.

That incident happened 11 years ago and the neighbourhood, the residents and their houses, the gardens, soil and natural surrounding greenbelt habitat in that neighbourhood all the way down to Burrard inlet and into the water has still not recovered. If it had been bitumen then an area much larger than one neighbourhood would have had to be evacuated and there is little likelihood that residents could ever move back to their homes. It would all have had to be condemned and torn up.


.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2018, 04:44 AM
 
18,263 posts, read 10,362,943 times
Reputation: 13320
I'd like to query as to why ithas to be piped in it's bitumen state. If this product is ultimately refined elsewhere to create other products, why is it not refined where it's mined and then piped to ports of shipping?

If bitumen being piped carries exponentially greater risk why not refine it then pipe it?

Why hasn't the focus been on to refining it at source so it can be sold for higher value to recover refining costs.

Why hasn't Alberta built refineries to extract as much value out of this stuff as can be had? Incorporating all of the most recent advances in pollution controls/mitigation to a stationary refinery would seem a better approach to dealing with the risks associated with bitumen.

Last question; why hasn't Trudeau suggested renaming this stuff "bitupersons"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2018, 06:49 AM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 11,130,951 times
Reputation: 3738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
There are no pipelines carrying bitumen to the west coast (nor anywhere else across Canada to the best of my knowledge - it is very dangerous stuff). I don't know where you got the idea that there was but that does demonstrate that many people probably don't actually know what is flowing through all the pipelines in Canada.

Kinder Morgan's Transmountain Pipeline is the one you're thinking of (and the one being protested) it has always carried both crude oil and refined petroleum products to Burnaby BC. No Bitumen. However the new pipeline they are proposing to run parallel to it is the one that would be intended to carry bitumen which is much more dangerous. Three times more bitumen than the amount of crude and refined oils that are presently being piped. https://www.kindermorgan.com/busines...smountain.aspx

There have already been several crude oil spills on land from the Kinder Morgan pipelines, including one that happened on land in a residential neighbourhood in Burnaby right by the water. That particular spill was a pipeline that burst underground, split a hole through the pavement in the middle of the street and the crude oil geysered up out of the street and fountained 70 feet up into the air. The geyser sprayed the oil all over the houses and gardens on that street, ran into storm drains and flowed down the street and sidewalks and down the greenbelt hillside into the water of Burrard Inlet. The entire neighbourhood had to be evacuated for many days because of toxic vapours while it was being cleaned up.

That incident happened 11 years ago and the neighbourhood, the residents and their houses, the gardens, soil and natural surrounding greenbelt habitat in that neighbourhood all the way down to Burrard inlet and into the water has still not recovered. If it had been bitumen then an area much larger than one neighbourhood would have had to be evacuated and there is little likelihood that residents could ever move back to their homes. It would all have had to be condemned and torn up.
I read further and while dilbit hasn't been transported for 60 years (thanks for the clarification), I have read information that Kinder Morgan is already using the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline to transport diluted bitumen. Is this incorrect?

https://www.wildernesscommittee.org/...eline_proposal

As for spills and dangers - I would agree with you in that this isn't at all a perfect situation - far from it. What happened in Burnaby 11 years ago Is really terrible and more needs to be done to prevent a reoccurrence. The question is in my mind, is the risk too great given mitigating factors. THE NEB has already approved the new pipeline on the Federal level. Either That agency was too lax in its evaluation of the project, or the demands of the local population are extraordinary. That all said, if I were a local, i'd defend my interests, not necessarily to derail construction even if I wanted to but to gain as many concessions as possible in terms of protection.

Last edited by fusion2; 03-26-2018 at 07:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2018, 07:01 AM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 11,130,951 times
Reputation: 3738
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
I'd like to query as to why it has to be piped in it's bitumen state. If this product is ultimately refined elsewhere to create other products, why is it not refined where it's mined and then piped to ports of shipping?

If bitumen being piped carries exponentially greater risk why not refine it then pipe it?

Why hasn't the focus been on to refining it at source so it can be sold for higher value to recover refining costs.

Why hasn't Alberta built refineries to extract as much value out of this stuff as can be had? Incorporating all of the most recent advances in pollution controls/mitigation to a stationary refinery would seem a better approach to dealing with the risks associated with bitumen.
An older article but gets into quite a bit of detail why Refineries and Upgraders arent' being built in Canada anymore
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/0...n_1539701.html

For your interest - some information about Diluted Bitumen or Dilbit from Transmountain.
https://www.transmountain.com/dilute...en-information

Anyway BRU - in the absence of anyone else from Western Canada piping up about this other than those from B.C in here ,i'm pretty done with this topic. We've got two from B.C who are pretty vocal about this project being a disaster (I can understand their concerns) and us from Ontario trying to see the other side while that other side is very quiet.

Last edited by fusion2; 03-26-2018 at 07:22 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2018, 10:08 AM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,937 posts, read 27,326,583 times
Reputation: 8602
I sense I am not going to make many friends (except Botticcelli - he may be my only one after this) with this post but I need to get this off my chest...

From the "confused about which country they're living in" file...

OK, so I wasn't exactly surprised that some people in Canada were going to march on Saturday in support of the anti-gun marches in the U.S.

I've seen people in Ottawa (and I assumed other Canadian cities) march for the Ferguson, Missouri issue, Trayvon Martin, "I can't breathe" and a bunch of other things including opposition to Trump's travel ban...

Heck, St. John's NL of all places even has a Black Lives Matter movement!

But anyway, I was just shocked at the size of the crowd - especially in Ottawa. Admittedly it was a nice day, but it numbered not in the hundreds as I expected, but in the thousands for sure.

So on a chilly but sunny early spring day, you can mobilize several thousand Ottawans to protest against the lack of effective gun control in the United States.

Anyway, if this demographic (massively non-aboriginal, reflecting the city overall) mobilized for missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls in recent years... I missed it.

If they've marched about Canada's horrible record on child poverty (we are next-to-last in the OECD I think), I've also missed that too.

Hey, they don't even march for gun violence in their own city, which is now reaching record levels. In a tragic irony, the latest shooting in Ottawa happened in broad daylight about 1 km as the crow flies from Parliament Hill, presumably just as the crowd of demonstrators (oh-so-concerned about gun control in the country to the south) were dispersing.

Hopefully they didn't trip on the yellow police crime scene tape on their way home.

Welcome to 2018, where I guess the social media accounts of Kim Kardashian and other U.S. celebrities and media peeps decide what you have to care about!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2018, 10:19 AM
 
Location: Canada
5,690 posts, read 6,532,688 times
Reputation: 8188
mon ami!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2018, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 11,130,951 times
Reputation: 3738
Actually AJ - I enjoyed reading your post and agree with it very much and I think that we should do more to worry about issues in our own country. In this very thread I posted about institutional racism and 'closet' racism in this country. The response I got was 'crickets' except from Max Sterling. Not the person I wanted to get into it with on the matter. I also got into native issues with him and again - no response from anyone - no backup - nadda just 'crickets'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2018, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Canada
5,690 posts, read 6,532,688 times
Reputation: 8188
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
Actually AJ - I enjoyed reading your post and agree with it very much and I think that we should do more to worry about issues in our own country. In this very thread I posted about institutional racism and 'closet' racism in this country. The response I got was 'crickets' except from Max Sterling. Not the person I wanted to get into it with on the matter. I also got into native issues with him and again - no response from anyone - no backup - nadda just 'crickets'
Max is the proof.

Crickets because there is no reasoning with his point of view. I have tried that before. So it seemed better to let his posts stand as the proof than be dragged into an argument that had no hope of a common understanding. It's called not throwing pearls before swine.

It's very seldom that racists or bigots will see their racism or bigotry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2018, 10:56 AM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,937 posts, read 27,326,583 times
Reputation: 8602
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
Actually AJ - I enjoyed reading your post and agree with it very much and I think that we should do more to worry about issues in our own country. In this very thread I posted about institutional racism and 'closet' racism in this country. The response I got was 'crickets' except from Max Sterling. Not the person I wanted to get into it with on the matter. I also got into native issues with him and again - no response from anyone - no backup - nadda just 'crickets'
Sorry, but I don't often visit this thread.


Anyway, if you're like most of us, you likely have other social media accounts like Facebook, Twitter, etc., and have at least one or maybe more "friends" or "friends of friends" who are Canadian but post an INSANE amount of anti-Trump stuff on there.


I suppose they think they're fighting the good fight and in some way personally involved in public discourse, but while I can't stand Trump, what they're doing doesn't amount to more than following some reality show like The Bachelor or whatever. It's celebrified info-tainment more than current affairs.


The ecstasy of seeing Trump caught - yet again - for being "the bad guy" is not dissimilar to seeing the bad guys all get killed at the end of a Marvel superhero movie. And the level of analysis is usually about the same.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top