EnviroLink Forum

Pipeline safety assurances ring hollow—not malleable
Page 1 of 1

Author:  FrankGSterleJr [ Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Pipeline safety assurances ring hollow—not malleable

Some supporters of proposed new and expanded oil pipelines to Kitimat and the GVRD, respectively, claim that such pipelines are not notable breach eco-hazards during earthquakes.
I read a letter in Vancouver’s openly-pro-pipeline Province metro-daily in which the author used the January 2013 earthquake epicentred off of southern Alaska’s coast along with no reported major damage done to Alaska’s own mega oil pipeline as ‘proof’ that such major pipelines throughout B.C. would be just as ‘resilient.’
The error in using the said Alaskan earthquake as an accurate indicator of any pipeline resiliency is that there were no actual opposite-direction ground shifts, or anything near such, discovered during post-quake pipeline checks. Indeed, common sense dictates that there could not have been any such ground shifts involved, ones in which two pieces of tectonic plates (“transform boundary”) grind against each other in opposite directions. If there was to be a shift of even only a few feet around or immediately below the pipeline, it would be defying common laws of physics, unless the pipeline is made of extremely elastic material (which they’re as of yet not).
It must be noted, and noted again, that the assurances of pipeline safety or similarly such (e.g. oil freighter routes) repeatedly brought up by proponents of oil pipeline projects can never be true pipeline safety or anything near it. They’d breach, to put it mildly, almost certainly eventually leaving behind detrimental environmental consequences throughout pristine and eco-sensitive regions of B.C.—not to mention much of the rest of Canada.

Author:  Fosgate [ Thu Jan 30, 2014 9:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Pipeline safety assurances ring hollow—not malleable

I ask, what is your definition of "true" pipeline safety?

Author:  FrankGSterleJr [ Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pipeline safety assurances ring hollow—not malleable

By "true" pipeline safety, I mean what is at present apparently either technologically impossible or implausible, likely due to fiscal unfeasibility (e.g. non-breaching pipeline components—in like manner to that of seemingly totally flexible but very expensive eyeglasses flames).

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pipeline safety assurances ring hollow—not malleable

A pipeline that NEVER springs a leak in thousands of miles?? The high cost in CO2 and other HGHGs of mining and burning the Keystone oil sands crude is what will ruin efforts to reduce emissions 90% in 9 years to prevent crossing the natural tipping point of Arctic methane deposits self release with no further human input. An accelerating phenomenon which spreads to oceanic deposits with open ocean warming and in the end even the warm waters and Earth surface sequestered CO2 releases to the atmosphere. Who can wait the 230K years it takes to recover just the temperatures of benevolence, and a couple million years more to redevelop the diversity and number of species existent at the start of this 6th Great Extinction Episode of Earth's History? Starting near the beginning of this interglacial epoch, now called the Anthropocene. Of course the glacial cycles driven by ellipticity of orbit and axis tip variation, will be over for two cycles.
So large a proportion of "humanity" just can't see beyond their own nose. Taking down those who understand and live sustainably like my 3 person family. Really, to me, most people are unworthy of this planet of which they are quickly degrading the biosphere to unsurvivability of most species by their low IQ(under 135) over-breeding and/or greedy ways.

Author:  FrankGSterleJr [ Sat Feb 01, 2014 5:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pipeline safety assurances ring hollow—not malleable

I'm not talking about finger-width sized leaks but rather major or even catastrophic breaches resulting in nakedly vulnerable streams, lakes, rivers, bays, inlets, straits, etcetera, and its life forms big and small being drowned in cakes of crude.
As far as what's the least eco-risky means—i.e. the figurative shortest dwarf amongst all of dwarfism—of acquiring and transporting our traditional major, fossil-fuel source of energy, I'll presume you're considerably more knowledgeable than I, although I'm not certain that I understand all that you state for the same reason.
I do notice, however, that you don't mention anything about how you perceive the concept of far greater use of the virtually unlimited solar energy.

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pipeline safety assurances ring hollow—not malleable

Basically, I agree with James Hansen in "Storms of My Grandchildren".
The coal and other fossil fuel power plants should be replaced with Gen IV waste using nuclear where
other forms of non-emissions power is unfeasible. In the sunbelt---all solar. On the coast, wind, wave, and tidal. Other areas with good wind and still others good for micro hydro.
Population reduction is also important.
To me, it is doubtful that emissions will be reduced enough to prevent AETM (circa 2500AD), and it is already too late to stop the population crash of the late 2040s or sooner.
I have lived on solar power since 1998, and panels are much cheaper than mine were. A big problem is the lack of general skills of most people to install alternative energy systems themselves and make them truly affordable as overpopulation rips away at income and increases costs from increased demands. :-k :mrgreen:

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group