Discussions

What you fail to mention is that 795,000 litres is an original estimate. Every time an oil leak happens, the numbers are always extremely conservative and wrong.  
 
Doing the math, 1 barrel of oil is equivalent to 159 litres. The number 795,000 is a convenient one, because if you do the math it is 795,000/159 = 5,000 EXACTLY. So by your argument, TransCanada happens to have a pipeline oil spill that is exactly equal to 5,000 barrels of oil. Pay attention folks, more to come on this story.  
 
So if you can contain a 5,000 barrel oil spill on land, how do you propose these companies will be able to contain a tanker holding much much more, without devastating BC's pristine coastline? I am very open to hearing how you propose this should be done because I would love to be convinced otherwise.

795,000 sounds like a lot of oil, and no doubt it isn't just a drop.  
 
To give some perspective, that's about 3 Olympic swimming pools full.

What I find interesting is that what everybody fails to mention is that the 795,000 litres is an original estimate that is likely to be extremely inaccurate. Every time an oil leak happens in this industry, the original numbers they come out with are always extremely conservative and misleading and wrong.  
 
But let's take some time and entertain doing the math. One barrel of oil is equivalent to 159 litres.  
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_(unit)  
 
The original estimate of 795,000 is obviously inaccurate. It is inaccurate because it sounds precise, but is misleading and far from it. If you look at the number itself, it is shown as 5,000 less than 800,000 and you think if they give such a precise number then you think it has been contained ... but if you do the math ... 795,000 litres/159 litres per barrel = you get EXACTLY 5,000 barrels. By this logic, 5,000 barrels of oil that fell out of a pipeline is not a precise number. I know I have heard this story before, so pay attention folks, there will be more to come on this story in the coming days as the industry tries to contain the PR nightmare just before the Nebraska decision is released.  
 
Doing the math another way, a single barrel of oil measures 24" diameter x 35" high. Taking a radius of 12" and doing the math (12*12)3.1416 and 35" long we get a barrel volume of 15,833 cubic inches.  
 
Now look at the pipeline. The diameter of a pipeline is 30". Using this same math, the cross sectional area of a 30" diameter pipe = 707 square inches. Dividing 15,833 cubic inches of oil in a barrel by 707 square inches of cross sectional area, we find that a single barrel of oil occupies a length of 22.4" of pipeline. Take this length of 22.4" per barrel and consider a 5,000 barrel spill, with barrels aligned top to bottom. That translates to an area of pipeline covering nearly 3 km in length, and it is probably safe to say that the actual spill amount is likely much larger based on history.  
 
What I find interesting was that in the BP Horizon oil of spill of 2010 originally stated that the amount leaking was less than 1,000 barrels per day, but we now know that the amount that had been leaking was much, much more. Independent analysis put the original spill amount at an estimated 62,000 barrels per day, nearly 62 times more than the original declared spill amount:  
 
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/12/bp-oil-spill-gulf-mexico  
 
So for arguments sake, say a company is able to contain a 5,000 barrel oil spill on land, how do you propose these companies will be able to contain a single tanker holding upwards of 2,000,000 barrels of crude oil located in BC's coastal waters, without completely devastating BC's pristine coastline? I am very open to hearing how you propose this should be done because I would love to be convinced otherwise.

Trevor said "795,000 sounds like a lot of oil, and no doubt it isn't just a drop.     To give some perspective, that's about 3 Olympic swimming pools full. "

It's less than 1/3 of an Olympic pool. Olympic pool is 2.5 million litres.

I would propose it should be done the same way it's been done for the last 60+ years that ocean oil tankers have been coming and going from Vancouver's Westridge marine terminal without a single incident.  
 
There are so many regulations governing the oil tankers once they near Port it's basically a non issue. On top of that, since Exxon Valdez, all oil tankers are now double hulled and highly compartmentalized, so as difficult as it is to breach a tanker, if (somehow) it was, only a small fraction would leak out.  
GPS navigation as well is backup for any human error, ever seen the bridge of modern vessel?  
What's more probable to cause a more serious spill are cruise liners and containerships that carry up to 10,000,000 litres of bunker crude fuel in their "gas tanks". But environmentalists concerned about contamination never bring issue with that, bias.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/keystone-investigation-greenpeace-1.4407127  
 
QUOTE FROM ARTICLE: "A Nebraska law approved in 2011 prevents the commissioners from factoring pipeline safety or the possibility of leaks into their decisions."

Oil should be phased out.  
 
Canadian riggers should become world leaders in geothermal. Engineering departments should focus on green energy. You'll create more jobs in the long run. Local jobs.

Hey! said "Oil should be phased out.     Canadian riggers should become world leaders in geothermal. Engineering departments should focus on green energy. You'll create more jobs in the long run. Local jobs. "

Well said.

The fossil fuel industry has just been dealt another serious blow by Tesla motors:  
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/tesla-semi-1.4404799  
 
Tesla Roadster unveiled:  
 
The sports car with a removable glass roof is an updated version of Tesla''s first production vehicle. It can seat four and travel 1,000 km on a single charge, a new record for an electric vehicle, Musk said.  
 
''Hardcore smackdown of gasoline cars''  
 
It can go from 0 to 100 km/h in 1.9 seconds with a maximum speed over 400 km/h, which would make it the fastest car in general production.  
 
"You''ll be able to travel from LA to San Francisco, and back, at highway speed without recharging. The point of doing this is to just give a hardcore smackdown to gasoline cars.  
 
_____________________________  
 
 
In other news, Keystone XL has just unveiled its brand new disastrous pipeline, having already spilled a very conservative 5,000 barrels before the project has even been fully approved.  
 
Edited by JoeSixpack, 2017-11-17 13:02:55

Thanks for sharing that analysis.

Here is a write up from Joe Oliver is the former minister of finance and minister of natural resources.  
 
I agree with him that the oil industry in Canada is being held hostage by outside interest groups. I did not realize that the US is buying our oil at a deep discount and now selling theirs at world market.  
 
http://winnipegsun.com/opinion/columnists/oliver-canadians-need-to-wake-up-to-our-buried-energy-riches/wcm/29dcb91b-fd2c-43bc-8753-b48e4374af77

Depending on the price of oil at any given time Canadians are losing royalties by shipping oil to the US. Basically because the US is a sole customer they are buying our oil at a deep discount, refining the oil and selling it back to us at world prices. The kicker is they are now exporting their oil at world market prices.  
 
http://www.canadaaction.ca/respect_the_rule_of_law

JetsDawg said "Oil is dead we need to move on to solar and wind. Electric Cars "

We're not far enough ahead for that. No one is. You can run cars on electricity, but anything bigger, not yet. And do you realize how much stuff is made from biproducts of oil? The electric cars you talk of use products made from said biproducts/. Oil is far from dead.

That is what is in Alberta, it is not oil. It ends up being called heavy and sour. The low end of the scale for price and value.  
 
The good stuff is light sweet, pumps out of the ground ready to be used: Brent, Saudi Arabia, Texas.  
 
Venezuela is mostly tar sands as well. They buy Nigerian oil, light, mix it with theirs so they can sell it.  
 
Coody Peby, in Australia is a tar sands said to have more "oil" than SA. They do not feel it is worth the effort or destruction to extract.

First of all I do understand Oil Sands does not sell for the same as higher end oils. All I am saying is Canada would get a better price selling to someone else.  
 
This article is what I believe anyway to be the most truthful as to what is happening in Canada. I believe Indigenous people (in some areas) have lost a chance and becoming financially free.  
 
I have said before that there are other forces in play that are hindering our industries. The largest being Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, why do they have to give 190 million to First Nations, environmental and other organizations working in B.C.  
 
Don’t understand this one Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and Pew Charitable Trusts.  
 
http://business.financialpost.com/feature/eco-colonialism-rift-grows-between-indigenous-leaders-and-green-activists

I think you mean Coober Pedy?  
 
Opals and tar sands at Coober Pedy

I cannot, for the life of me, spell Coober Pedy.

My phone kept making it into Goober Pedy!

Is smarter than me. I do not even come that close.

Great discussion, I too do not fully understand Canada's energy policy. It seems to have deteriorated into a quandary of self doubt ... seeded in no small part by factions outside of Canada.  
 
There was a post concerning the end of oil ... why is United States of America opening up off shore drilling, exponentially expanded fracking, and grabbed market share from .... Canada?  
 
This is about strategic economic health and a diversified economy ... which oil is part of. Canada needs to export to other markets aside from the USA. At highly discounted values.  
 
An example of innovation that might free up foreign markets.  
 
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/cn-develops-technology-that-could-make-bitumen-transportation-safer/article34082304/  
 
Righteousness and ideology do not fund a government. Our government is steering the country into potentially huge deficits. Is it really the time to not support this industry or worse destroy it?  
 
Oil and gas is an important part of the economic fabric of Canada ... has been an economic driver for decades, and can be for decades to come.  
 
Will be very interesting to see if the above technology works out ... more interesting to see the responses by government, environmentalists.  
 
While Canada dithers other countries benefit.

Canada has some great companies engaged is renewable energy.  
 
Examples TransAlt Renewables, Northland Power, Algonquin Power, and Polaris Infrastructure.  
 
Polaris Infrastructure is interesting, as it owns and operates GeoThermal Power Plants in ..... Nicaragua.  
 
Renewable/clean energy projects are assumed to be the way forward, however they also run into opposition.  
 
National Post had a running data base of projects that have been derailed, cancelled, delayed. Was very surprised to see the number of renewable energy projects that were i:ncluded.  
 
Sorry ... unsure if the link works. Possibly one has to be logged into NP or possibly the feedback was too politically sensitive and they never advances the matter further.  
 
Here is the link.  
 
http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/arrested-development-a-searchable-database-of-billions-worth-of-stalled-blocked-and-cancelled-resource-projects  
 
Was a very interesting read, and unfortunately another example of how Canada self marginalizes.

For what purpose? US estimates, based on existing finds, are that the US has enough oil, gas, etc to last for 554 (five hundred and fifty-four) years. Some pundits claim that we will never run out of oil, there is that much of it. We have been on the brink of running out for 40 years, then, more is found.

Here is a database of pipeline activity and GHE for North America.  
 
http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=84536ad4417d497c95ca0abf8ac6e746  
 
It is a very interesting website and some excellent information.  
 
Not sure how the Tides Foundation reconciles US activities and their support of arresting development in Canada.

The purpose of renewables are to help combat Global Warming ... sorry, the updated Newspeak word is Climate Change.  
 
Believe that Canada has a role to combat climate change, however also to protect our resource economy. It is strategic and highly important.  
 
Canada can not rely on one customer for our oil and gas industry.  
 
Canada needs economic autonomy ... now more than ever. Oil and gas is part of this equation.