Energy east

[RH. 56]

Yet another pipeline project is being planned in canada but this one will be in our own backyard and very close to where we all go fishing and hunting. The energy east pipeline project is the old trans canada natural gas pipeline being "converted" to transport thick black bitumen from albertas tar sands to the east coast to be shipped to over seas consumers. This pipeline is already 60 years old and ruptures often even with the natural gas in it which is no where near as thick as bitumen, if this pipeline is set to carry bitumen thru it, there is a guarenteed chance of spills of the sludge right into our lakes and rivers we fish and drink from, to help stop this from happening, spread the word, research, and sign the petition on the following website thanks

Noenergyeast.ca

[ghart 55]

Yes, ... pipelines - safest way to transport any oil anywhere... far less leaks (Both in number and size) than any other form of transportation.

Pipelines don't tend to blow up in the middle of towns (love those 70-80 cars twice a day through my town) - not even counting trucks.

Hundreds of pipelines already criss-cross north America - billions of barrels moved with only a tiny percentage of leaks.

Pipelines adds jobs and makes Canada a net exporter of oil... Although Id rather see them process it here too - maybe we should start a petition for that.

If we shut down the pipelines, the tar sand etc. etc., then we import oil... from the middle east.

Definitely get informed and read up - tons of information out there.

[Guest eyehunter]

I agree with ghart

[Some Old Guy 968]

I agree and I agree that Canada must manufacture more of it's resources.

I can't sell you a tree for $30.00 and buy back the chairs for $40.00 each and expect to have a thriving economy.

Roger

[RH. 56]

The problem is the pipeline that they are going to be using. Its 60 years old and is said to be "99% leak proof" which is still 400,000 barrels of oil per year at the minimum. This oil is not even for canada and is being shipped away to be burned elsewhere, which would set us up for a huge amount of emissions into the atmosphere. Although everyone can have their opinion, but this is my opinion

[ribneck 14]

OK and what does this have to do with fishing I'm seriously sick of looking through post after post about meaningless stuff that has nothing to do with fishing post this in another section and save this one for stuff that matters.

[James01 223]

I agree and I agree that Canada must manufacture more of it's resources.

I can't sell you a tree for $30.00 and buy back the chairs for $40.00 each and expect to have a thriving economy.

Roger

I agree with you Roger, and I also believe that Canada needs to nationalize the natural resource industries - i.e. oil, mining, etc... especially oil. Profits to the people - and cheaper gas, instead of profits for big industry. But that is a different topic entirely.

Re: Energy East... its always in hindsight that people say, "Damn we should have been more careful." Pipelines leak, and companies put profit before everything else. Just saying...

And to make this relevant to fishing, I would not be happy if 'they' (the infamous they) put a pipeline across my favorite lake or next to a camp I owned. People need to get away from this "profit before all else" mindsight, its killing the world.

Only when the last tree has died, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, will people realize that we can't eat money.

[SherpaJ 45]

OK and what does this have to do with fishing I'm seriously sick of looking through post after post about meaningless stuff that has nothing to do with fishing post this in another section and save this one for stuff that matters.

Apparently you're looking through the wrong forum for fishing. This is the Everything Else Forum.

I'm all for the booming economic growth for Canada (selling our resources, increased # of jobs), but we will forever be buying back our own resources from other countries...nothing we can do to change that. Even if we did, we'd pay through the roof and people would wish it were the way before. With that being said, I support the pipeline purely from an increase of employment POV. But from an environmental POV, I have to believe that there is going to be tonnes of work done on the pipeline before it ever sees any bitumen to ensure there are no (or I should say reduced) risks.

[fishman1 164]

I am involved in the piping industry. The line will be tested first off and repaired if need be. All river crossings will need a pumping station, perhaps 50 + in our area. There is never any guarantee of something happening to the line. Trans Canada pipeline has a VERY good track record in our area. The railroad, tractor trailers e.t.c. Don't have such a track record. This is the safest and most efficient way of moving vast quantities of our oil reserves to different continents.

Look what is happening now with the Russians , they are holding many countries hostage as they supplies a high percentage of oil to these countries.

Economically, this project will create a huge impact to our area. And to the tar sands where many of our local tradesman have had to relocate because of the lack of forward thinking by many people in our area.

[Guest Bran]

I am involved in the piping industry. The line will be tested first off and repaired if need be. All river crossings will need a pumping station, perhaps 50 + in our area. There is never any guarantee of something happening to the line. Trans Canada pipeline has a VERY good track record in our area. The railroad, tractor trailers e.t.c. Don't have such a track record. This is the safest and most efficient way of moving vast quantities of our oil reserves to different continents.

Look what is happening now with the Russians , they are holding many countries hostage as they supplies a high percentage of oil to these countries.

Economically, this project will create a huge impact to our area. And to the tar sands where many of our local tradesman have had to relocate because of the lack of forward thinking by many people in our area.

Just a word of advice, when you want to sound convincing with your argument…try to not start your comment stating your employed for the company you are about to defend. The line running through northern ontario has had multiple leaks. None of them fatal or visible due to the nature of the gas being transported. Trans Canada operates the new southern portion of the Keystone XL line and it leaked 12 times in the first year of operations. Thats a brand new pipeline leaking 12 times, and your trying to say there is no risk with a 40 year old line?? Give your head a shake.

"Economically" this project will create fewer than 10 permanent jobs in Northern Ontario. Imagine the amount of tourism revenue lost if it spills.. I guarantee it won't make up for the few jobs it makes. Unless you consider oil/disaster cleanup suitable work.

And finally… Regardless of the pipeline construction/reversal, The volume of rail car shipments will not change. The rail companies have invested millions in loading/offloading facilities to move the product and have signed contracts 3 years into the future. Most of the oil shipped via rail is from southern Saskatchewan and the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota. The pipeline does not move this type of product nor does it pass through the area. Trans Canada will sell you this pipeline like their business depends on it, and its because it does. The reality is, Northern Ontario gets nothing from this project. Except the risk.

If your on this blog its clearly because you enjoy the outdoors. Google "kalamazoo oil spill". They still haven't cleaned it up and its years later. Same type of oil they want to bring through here. They don't know HOW to clean it up. Think of those images, but on the Nipigon river.

[SherpaJ 45]

Just a word of advice, when you want to sound convincing with your argument…try to not start your comment stating your employed for the company you are about to defend. The line running through northern ontario has had multiple leaks. None of them fatal or visible due to the nature of the gas being transported. Trans Canada operates the new southern portion of the Keystone XL line and it leaked 12 times in the first year of operations. Thats a brand new pipeline leaking 12 times, and your trying to say there is no risk with a 40 year old line?? Give your head a shake.

"Economically" this project will create fewer than 10 permanent jobs in Northern Ontario. Imagine the amount of tourism revenue lost if it spills.. I guarantee it won't make up for the few jobs it makes. Unless you consider oil/disaster cleanup suitable work.

And finally… Regardless of the pipeline construction/reversal, The volume of rail car shipments will not change. The rail companies have invested millions in loading/offloading facilities to move the product and have signed contracts 3 years into the future. Most of the oil shipped via rail is from southern Saskatchewan and the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota. The pipeline does not move this type of product nor does it pass through the area. Trans Canada will sell you this pipeline like their business depends on it, and its because it does. The reality is, Northern Ontario gets nothing from this project. Except the risk.

If your on this blog its clearly because you enjoy the outdoors. Google "kalamazoo oil spill". They still haven't cleaned it up and its years later. Same type of oil they want to bring through here. They don't know HOW to clean it up. Think of those images, but on the Nipigon river.

Just a word of advice, when you want to sound convincing with your argument…try to not start your comment with an assumption. He said he was involved, never specifically stated he was employed by any pipeline company as you are stating. Though your statements may seem compelling, I'm forced to question the validity of some.