Read more: http://www.timescolonist.com/business/Pipeline+proposal+fraught+with+risks/5998741/story.html#ixzz1jYJwhvrr
Aleithia
10:08 AM on 1/15/2012
I can appreciate this is an opinion piece.
Opinions are fine, but when we proffer our opinions we should be careful about exaggeration. A few points to calm the hysteria down a bit: Enbridge owns hundreds of miles of pipe line it didn't build. The lines came to Enbridge as a "bonus" when Enbridge was acquiring other assets. Large sections are 40-50 years old. Some of the pipe was corroded, and was not accurately assessed as such in time to fix it.
Since corrosion is a valid worry, why not demand that Canada's pipeline be ultra modern with a minimum of 8% Molybdenum in it's steel. Off shore oil platforms are made of it, they don't rust. Moly steel can last for 100 years in salt water without a spec of rust. This is one solution that could tackle one fear, demonstrating Enbridge and the Governments are listening.
Opinions are fine, but when we proffer our opinions we should be careful about exaggeration. A few points to calm the hysteria down a bit: Enbridge owns hundreds of miles of pipe line it didn't build. The lines came to Enbridge as a "bonus" when Enbridge was acquiring other assets. Large sections are 40-50 years old. Some of the pipe was corroded, and was not accurately assessed as such in time to fix it.
Since corrosion is a valid worry, why not demand that Canada's pipeline be ultra modern with a minimum of 8% Molybdenum in it's steel. Off shore oil platforms are made of it, they don't rust. Moly steel can last for 100 years in salt water without a spec of rust. This is one solution that could tackle one fear, demonstrating Enbridge and the Governments are listening.
Aleithia
10:18 AM on 1/15/2012
How comparable are the pipeline risks to risk that happens every day when we truck gasoline, and diesel and oil products to Kitimat or Prince Rupert? Will there be a set-back minimum that keeps the pipeline at least a certain distance away from major rivers? If so, it should be apparent, we already tolerate far greater risk from the hydrocarbons we truck than those posed by a pipeline. The EPA has determined hydrocarbon leaks, (including ruptures) are 22 barrels of oil per billion. Or .002 litres per km. How does that risk compare with the hydrocarbons we know spill from our automobiles every year?
@Bruno 1997: More facts to slake the
hysteria: Since the Exon Valdez, over 1600 tankers have shipped oil
down the west coast of Canada.
Much has been made of risk. In fact, that is a smoke-screen. Risk is a number: it is at least theoretically quantifiable. So the new term/concept is inevitability. Inevitability is the security blanket of the opposers of the pipeline, because it is always guaranteed to equal at least 100%, by stretching risk to infinity. Of course, since this is an emotional issue, that fact is conveniently hidden. Consider how this logic would apply to any disaster: For example, there is natural gas being piped to Prince Rupert, where it is being compressed into CNG product for shipment over seas. There is a risk this plant will blow up. It is a small number, but if you extend time to infinity, the risk is 100%.
Much has been made of risk. In fact, that is a smoke-screen. Risk is a number: it is at least theoretically quantifiable. So the new term/concept is inevitability. Inevitability is the security blanket of the opposers of the pipeline, because it is always guaranteed to equal at least 100%, by stretching risk to infinity. Of course, since this is an emotional issue, that fact is conveniently hidden. Consider how this logic would apply to any disaster: For example, there is natural gas being piped to Prince Rupert, where it is being compressed into CNG product for shipment over seas. There is a risk this plant will blow up. It is a small number, but if you extend time to infinity, the risk is 100%.
@Bruno continued: Similarly, where the highway parallels the Fraser
river, there is a risk a tanker truck will over turn dumping
hydrocarbons disastrously. That risk becomes 100% if you spread the
time to infinity. This is why this is flawed reasoning. If there is
anything that has risk, it always must be inevitable if you spread it
over enough time. Regrettably, many people in BC have never been taught
to think critically, so when some emotional idea like an inevitable oil
spill is proposed. Suddenly moved by emotion the public jumps on
board, not realizing they have been duped.
No comments:
Post a Comment