It’s going to move one way or the other.

Once again, pipelines are far safer than rail.

Bcracer, are you making this comment based on one derail? Cn runs multiple trains through there every day. Im not sure when the last mainline derail was but id say they are doing pretty good.

Actually a few years back CN derailed not to far from there spilling several car loads of chemicals into Wabaman lake . The lake is one as I understand it pretty much dead .

The LPG cars caught fire, the crude oil tank cars are okay.

No Alberta oil by rail! The risk is too great. Imagine if this dumped into the Nechako River, Fraser Lake, the Skeena River and other areas where CN Rail go. From what I see on my travels with Via Rail, it appears that CN is doing minimum maintenance. Where will the next derailment occur?

Wow, you ride via rail. So now you’re qualified to comment on CN’s level of maintenance?

Tarsands sludge isn’t crude and would be pretty much a blob of tar sitting in the tanker car. How is the Kalamazoo clean up coming Enbridge?

Wabamin is not dead, but the spill was ugly on all accounts. Pipelines are by far the way to move product. Period. It would be ironically catastrophic for rail over pipeline to win the day.

When BC Rail was sold, this site was full of posters not happy with CN’S record. Now, many think rail of product is the way to go.

Build a world class pipeline and shit can the rail fantasy.

We all know that the oil will flow either by rail or pipe line. Pipe lines can break and they do, according to a TSB report, there is about nine leaks per year along a pipe line. Rail cars can derail, but usually without any significant spill, if they leak at all. It takes a lot to puncher a car. They are engineered safe and strong. Each car is limited to about 31809 gallons, they also have built in compartments so to fully lose 31809 gallons would be extremely rare. The crude is thicker in tank cars so it’s not going to saturate into the ground like diluted oil in pipelines which will sink into the ground and much harder to recover.

The biggest advantage of pipe lines is for the producer of the oil because once the pipe line is built, it will provide very little employment for Canadians and thus bigger profits. Transporting oil by rail will generate hundreds of jobs for our sons and daughters. Since oil is a non renewable resource it makes more sense to generate as many job possible for Canadians!

For your info NoWay, in regards to your October 19 2013 6:19 PM comment.
Lets put your concern in regards to tar sand to bed, there is no such creature. Tar is a man made product, educate yourself , you sound like an another enviro kook when using such a phrase, as Tar Sand.

I agree with Cheetos in that rail can be safer. I still don’t think it should ever leave our west coast as bitumen though.

What I find most interesting about this latest tank car explosion is the obvious extent of it from the aerial photo’s on the CBC. Like Lac Magantic the outburst is significant.

If one was to superimpose the picture from CBC to the PG CN yard at scale it is obvious the blast zone would include a large part of our downtown, and even as far as the office towers.

I once had a semi explode as I drove by on a freeway in Florida. It caught fire right in front of us, but the traffic was pushing hard, so we took the median to stay as clear away as possible while passing it and it exploded right behind us with the blast going out from the semi fuel tanks clear across the median to the other side of the freeway. It was a massive fireball, and those were only 600 liter diesel tanks.

Clearly PG has a problem if we allow CN to self regulate the shipments of bitumen or any other explosive through our city. We had our warning a few years back with the tanker car explosion on the Fraser side of the river. What ever came of those studies?

#1 I think the city fire chief should have the power to force municipal regulations on CN when shipping dangerous goods through our city… if they don’t like it they can route around the cities.

#2 Its long past time that CN start shipping through the Bear Lake to Fort St James line, and finish the extension as a mainline from Fort St James to east of Fraser Lake. If they are going to be shipping dangerous goods this way then the 60km of track needs to be laid to get the trains out of downtown PG and along the Nechako River.

The CN bridge in PG is getting old at over a hundred years old now and it shouldn’t be replaced IMO.

These trains are becoming rolling bombs without detonators as they are unprotected rolling through our towns, parking in our switching yards. Its not just bitumen either, its the LNG, and diesel, and other fuels as well.

The rail crossing in Vanderhoof is a real potential crisis waiting to happen as well.

During the day they get huge traffic backed up at that level grade crossing in their downtown where main street intersects with highway 16. Whats to say a drunk doesn’t stop someday or a suicide by train and we get a derailment like Alberta had last night in downtown Vanderhoof. The entire downtown would be incinerated worse than Lac Magantic was.

Furthermore if we add how many more train cars the route through Vanderhoof then their downtown will be essentially cut in half and isolated… without a 30km detour. The crossing simply can not handle any more train traffic. It should be left in place only as a service line for tourism, rapid transit to PG (as a PG suburb), and for forestry and freight trains between PG and the west mainline.

In the coming years this issue will surely only grow in importance, so best we get ahead of the situation now IMO. It should be a federal priority for this region and its infrastructure and not left to CN and its bottom dollar.

“Transporting oil by rail will generate hundreds of jobs for our sons and daughters”

In addition to that:

1. the rail route is a known entity with relatively safe sections as well as higher risk sections well known. Pipeline routes are not typically shared and thus create many unknown risks for individual sections of the route.

2. Pipelines are sole use infrastructure. Railways are multi use, so the upgrading of railway routes to remove level crossings, provide some retaining walls, etc. plus double track and even electrify, will provide improved capacity and reduce risks for more than just oil.

3. The total cost should be no more than a pipeline and likely less. The capital cost per total ton of goods shipped should be reduced which should make the products shipped less expensive and more competitive.

4. ANY kind of spill of product shipped is likely to be much more quickly accessible since rail can be used to get emergency equipment to a rail incident location.

BUT, we are in a free market economy so anyone can do whatever the hell they like. And there is the rub!!!!

furtree posted: “Tar is a man made product, educate yourself , you sound like an another enviro kook when using such a phrase, as Tar Sand.”

One always has to be careful when suggesting that someone should educate themselves. Frequently the people making those suggestions need to look in the mirror fits.

Bitumen, tar, asphalt, and maybe even other terms are words used differently by geologists, lay people, people from different countries, etc.

All of them can be naturally occurring as well as distilled by humans.

Some “tars” are naturally occurring, such as the LaBrea Tar pits in the Los Angeles area. Brea is Spanish for tar. So, they are the tar tar pits … :-)

“Tar pits are composed of heavy oil fractions called asphaltum, which seeped from the earth as oil. The oil reaches the surface and forms pools becoming asphalt as the lighter fractions of the petroleum biodegrade or evaporate. (nature working as the distiller).

So, figure out who the speaker is as far as technical point of view, and then from a regional point of view, and one may be able to understand what substance one is referring to.

Aluminum and aluminium …..

Boot and trunk …..

English is not the same the world over.

You say tomato, I say tomahto.
metalman.

Look at all the rail apologists. Once again, I couldn’t imagine the responses if these were pipeline incidents.

gus: “1. the rail route is a known entity with relatively safe sections as well as higher risk sections well known. Pipeline routes are not typically shared and thus create many unknown risks for individual sections of the route.”

Sorry, but this is pure BS. Pipelines and rail both share risks and both are known. But, nothing is completely without risk.

gus: “One always has to be careful when suggesting that someone should educate themselves. “

You do this quite often, so I’m not sure what your point is. I hope you’re not making the inference that your point of view is somehow better or more important than others.

Anyway, like dow said, time to stop fantasizing about rail transport, if people are as much concerned about risk as they say.

Time to stop fantasizing about an Enbridge pipline too. Why do you think Enbridge applied for the flow reversal?

I can call it Tar sands if I like furtree.
You weren’t trying to spell fir tree were you?

Glad this didn’t happen near Willow River.

Canada’s National Railways CN Rail and CP Rail are the lifeline of this Country. Without them we would be back in the stone ages.

The Federal Government is responsible for regulating these railways, and there is sufficient regulation to ensure that all safety issues are adhered to. The problem is that the Railways tend to be a little lax in some area’s and the Government doesn’t regulate to the extent that they should.

So the solution is for more Railway and Government expenditure on safety and regulation. The Railways are not going to reroute their trains anytime soon. They pass through thousands of towns, and any change in one town would or could also apply to all others at a huge cost.

Railways have been handling dangerous commodities through Prince George for decades, with no serious derailment, however if they don’t get on top of the safety, regulation, and maintenance issues things could go bad.

If we must get this bitumen to the coast,yes rail, when the system is upgraded will be able to handle it, plus generate jobs. However, like I say would we want such a derailment happening in a place like Willow River.

Spin it whatever way you wish (Gus Posted on October 19/13)
It doesn’t alter the fact that there is no Tar in the Alberta Oil sands, its simply a cliche add by enviro kooks intended to demean the oilsands. In this country Tar has its own spicific meaning, whatever its meaning may be in timbuktu or wherever is irrelevant here. You excel in attempting to muddy the waters on a regular basis.

NoWay: “Time to stop fantasizing about an Enbridge pipline too.”

As I said, the oil will move one way or the other.

furtree:
I think you have it backwards. “Tar Sands” used to be the common term decades ago, somewhere along the line the oil industry changed it to ” Oil Sands”. Sounds cleaner.

What would worry me about the railroad inside city limits is not the oil trains coming through town, as they would just roll right by at a maximum speed of 15mph.
Very low likely hood of derailing at slow speeds. What scares me is what’s already in our community. Young kids with almost no work experience switching cars by remote control! What are they switching? Sulphur Dioxide, liquefied petroleum gas, gasoline, diesel, acid, hydrogen peroxide. All of these are dangerous in they’re own right. They are being switched inside city limits every day. At one time there were regulations with respect to switching dangerous goods. Example these cars could not be cut off while in motion. That’s gone now. Loads of sulphur dioxide could not be marshalled next to loads of liquefied petroleum gas. That’s also gone now. The list goes on and on. There are now virtually no restrictions with regards to the handling and marshalling of dangerous goods in yards or on trains. And this does not even factor in the toxic work environment they work in daily. Constant threats of discipline and dismissal, management expecting new hires to have the same level of productivity as a seasoned switchman. You should be afraid.

No trains or pipelines carrying oil? Just how am I going to drive my truck to Alberta to get fuel? Time consuming, I must admit. Maybe they can put a few barrels of oil on every airplane that flies. After all, it is the safest way to travel passenger to mile wise.

coastb. I think the regulations in the switching and handling of dangerous goods are still in place, however probably being ignored in some instances by railway employee’s.

As an example if you had diesel cars and ammonium nitrate cars together on a train and had a derailment, it could be curtains for a lot of people in that area.

If the rules for handling dangerous goods have been eliminated, then they should be brought back

middle: “I think you have it backwards. “Tar Sands” used to be the common term decades ago”

Common to whom? The enviro lobby? They still use it today, fyi.

Or we could stop worrying about oil transportation through BC altogether, and concentrate on the $35 billion investment by Petronas to export LNG. And see if we can get more of the other 6 LNG proposals to fruition.

The $5 billion Northern Gateway project is small potatoes compared to LNG exports. Northern Gateway is full of risk to BC, and provides little to no benefit to us. The fact that rail might be worse really is beside he point.

We can sell our gas for a 600% greater profit overseas. Alberta is looking to narrow a 30% price differential. Do the math!

There is no compelling reason to ship oil to BC coast, when there are much better alternatives to Canada, such as shipping it east.

Wow, I only posted the following comment 2 days ago… I just didn’t thing CN would prove me right so soon!

“High turnover of train operators / conductors = a steady stream of newbie train operators / conductors. Add lack of respect, and probably communication, between management and employees.

Sounds like a recipe for train derailments, accidents, injuries and deaths. Hmm… and this is the train company that will be delivering all that combustable fossil fuel (oil) through BC if the pipeline doesn’t go through?”

JB states: “It’s going to move One way or another.”

Typical (Harper) sheeple mouth piece, just won’t take “NO” for an answer!!!! This new approach and mantra will soon be obsolete just like the old “Ethical Oil” Bull Sh*t.

Not going to fly JB, projects and initiatives will not proceed with out “Social License”. The majority of British Columbians are against the pipeline therefore there is no social license to proceed.

The same applies to any other alternate mode of transporting dirty tar sands oil through BC and off our coast. Harper, Alison, and Christy require our “social license” to do so!

You and Harper just don’t get it do you; it does not matter what form of transportation that is proposed to be used, the right thing to do is to seek British Columbian’s approval first.

Forcing Alberta Tar Sands Oil on us is nothing short of rape and dictatorship! Wake up sheeple, we no longer live in a democratic society!

Hey, I thought of a drinking game… Every time People#1 uses the term “sheeple” or “Lib/Con”, or “Harper”, take a drink.

All that aside, sorry you don’t like the thought of oil moving, but it is going to, no matter how much of a tantrum you might throw. You’re absolutely right that rail isn’t the way to do it.

It’s not going to go, not without the approval from a majority of British Columbians! The right and proper thing to do is call a referendum on this matter.

But this “democratic” process will likely end up with British Columbians and the Union of BC Municipalities rejecting it AGAIN, by train or pipeline the answer will be NO.

So Harper, Christy and Alison will avoid this proper democratic process like the plague. Why? Because they simply will not take “NO” for an answer!

It doesn’t matter what British Columbians think, this oil is going to go… right JB /Harper?

Johnny its attitudes like yours (and the paid for media minions) that will undermine our democracy and enable traitors to our country to gut what is left of our sovereignty. All for the love of greed.

A Harper minion of his ‘enlightened sovereignty’ ilk. Pushing foreign investment deals that put corporate rights ahead of our provincial sovereignty and Supreme Court of Canada as a way to avoid dealing with the rights of the province or native claims that are entrenched and recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada… so instead Harper is using the cover of these investment deals with Europe, China, and the Pacific Rim to allow foreign tribunals to penalize Canadian democratic institutions for anything that diminishes potential profits.

People that are willing to undermine Canada for oil exports… to set us up for a direct legal conflict between Canadians and powerful foreign interests. A potential threat to the very fabric of our country.

So don’t take no for an answer Johnny, but we all know what you are all about.

Harbinger ……whispering….the bitumen is going to China. The crude will still flow to the refinery in PG and Costco will still truck in the fuel from Alberta. So you don’t have to worry about oil production shutting down when they finally give up on this insane idea.

Gee, sorry JB. I guess you weren’t around in the seventies.

“It’s not going to go, not without the approval from a majority of British Columbians!”

It may or may not go, but British Columbians don’t have a say… this pipeline would fall under Federal jurisdiction.

And the rule of thumb is, if Eagleone and People#1 think it’s a bad idea, then it must be good for the Country. All the more reason to support it.

Gee sorry middle finger, guess you weren’t
around in the fifties, while visiting Calgary in late 50s relatives which I was visiting with told me of these vast fields of oil sands in northern alberta which they had seen on a visit to fort Mac, always since they have been referred as the oil sands, until recently, enviro kooks have tried retag them as the tar sands.

You are correct furtree. I did not visit any relatives in Calgary in the fifties. Edmonton in the seventies. I have called them the “tar sands” all my life but until today, I didn’t know I was a “enviro kook” for using that term. I will attempt to be more “PC” in the future.

furtree states; “always since they have been referred to as the oil sands, until recently, eviro kooks have tried retag them as the tar sands.”

Oh really? I did not know President Obama was an “enviro kook”.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/analysts-play-down-obamas-tar-sands-terminology/article12816022/

furtree is just another BIG OIL shill pushing tar sands lies!!! Everyone in the United States of American calls it the “TAR SANDS” stop telling lies!!!

There simply is no room for debate on the popular use of “tar sands” terminology furtree, even the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management uses the term “tar sands”.

http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/tarsands/

Just scroll down to the bottom of their website and click on “who we are”.

hmm… I had no idea there were so many “enviro kooks” in the USA ;-)

Glad not everybody that reads this website is lost in the 19th Century. We sure do need to keep our minds open on this. However strip mining the “Tar Sands” is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Won’t be no life time before we see the effects of it, we are now seeing the terrible effects. Now I am not going to list those effects because you guys can just do a simple google search and see for yourselves.

CN Rail is regulated under Federal Legislation, I am told. The Province and the Municipal Government have very little impact or influence on CN Rail safety or any other byproduct. (Diesel Emissions and air quality)

herbster, you’re bang-on with this one. Oil and water will never mix, in fresh water or in salt water, ever.

If we let this pipeline go through, and the tanker traffic offshore increase because of it, it will be like building a bomb and looking for a way to set it off, and believe me, sooner or later, it will !!

A major spill in one of our rivers, or a tanker disaster like the Exon Valdeez close to our coasts, will instantly dissolve any and all benefits we ever got or will get from this mistake, forever!! The few who will get rich from it will slowly fade away with the proceeds, and the “little Guys” like you and me and our children and Grandchildren will be left holding the bag and the shovel when the clean up bills come flooding in.

Personally, I vote LNG yes. Oil — never!!

People#1 read yourhttp://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/tarsands/
Basicly they talk about the refining, processing of the tar sand, only problem is they never divulge when the process produces the tar, reason being I suppose as there is no tar to process.

furtree; this is from the glossary section of the Alberta Energy website:

“Bitumen:A thick, sticky form of crude oil that is so heavy and viscous that it will not flow unless it is heated or diluted with lighter hydrocarbons. At room temperature, bitumen looks much like cold molasses. It typically contains more sulphur, metals and heavy hydrocarbons than conventional crude oil.”

http://www.energy.alberta.ca/OilSands/1708.asp

I think we can all safely compare thick cold molasses to tar! Same viscosity, same sticky thick stuff!

Glad to see you are reading, and thus learning, more about this important topic. I just wish people like JB and dow 7500 would do the same. Ignorance is NOT bliss!

“It’s not going to go, not without the approval from a majority of British Columbians!”

There is nothing that anyone can do if they go by rail, don’t kid yourself. There is no regulation saying they can’t bring in tankers to any ports anywhere in BC, and the only thing they need is a plot of land by the ocean serviced by a rail line to build a terminal. Containers, coal and grain are being shipped from Rupert already and in a few years so will oil from either Rupert or Kitimat. By rail Rupert makes more sense as there are miles of coastline serviced by rail already.

Torment, bitumen is used for roads and shingles. It is not a new thing, globally there is over 100 million metric tonnes used for this process alone never mind refining further for fuels

Someone posted on the Prince George Citizen comment blog that there is only one oil terminal on the west coast of BC, namely the Kinder Morgan terminal in Burnaby / Vancouver.

There is absolutely no way the good people of Vancouver / Burnaby will allow that oil terminal to be expanded! Just as much so as the good people living along the coast and in kitimat will never allow a oil terminal to be built there.

Wow, it just does not matter how many times we have to say this, you Harper people just won’t listen! Or is it that you just won’t take NO for an answer?

Tar is made from coal, wood, petroleum, or peat. Petroleum bitumen is often confused with tar. Google is your friend.

slinky, I know. I lived in Fort McMurray and was in grade 9 there in the early 80’s. I felt it was wrong then to strip mine the “Tar Sands” and it’s still wrong today, it should stay in the ground. However the world needs oil to make this computer I am using. We don’t need Alberta “Tar Sands” for fuel. Cannabis makes great fuel.

People#1 you stated, I think we can all safely compare thick cold molasses to tar! Same viscosity, same sticky thick stuff! your using the same analogy for E.G. beer and cider being the same, as they both contain alcohol.
Now let enlighten with a article from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar

The word “tar” is often used to describe several distinct substances which are not actually tar. Naturally occurring “tar pits” (e.g., the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles) actually contain asphalt rather than tar. Tar sands deposits (sometimes called oil sands) contain various mixtures of sand (or rock) with bitumen or heavy crude oil and not tar (e.g., the Tar Tunnel in Shropshire). “Rangoon tar”, also known as “Burmese Oil” or “Burmese Naphtha”, is actually petroleum. “Tar” and “pitch” are sometimes used interchangeably; however, pitch is considered more solid while tar is more liquid

“Someone posted on the Prince George Citizen comment blog that there is only one oil terminal on the west coast of BC, namely the Kinder Morgan terminal in Burnaby / Vancouver.”

Um, that was you… here – blog/view/29807/1/moving+oil+to+port+by+rail+an+option?

Tormented, I do agree we need more research into biofuels. Unfortunately the debate right now is producing ethanol tends to use more fuel than it replaces. I also think Hydro needs to allow people to hook up solar arrays to their home a lot easier than today.

It’s just we can’t keep going the way we are. Something has got to give. Freaking lucky no derailments in Prince George or Willow River, or any place along the CN route. Sell our resources, but lets keep the land and water safe while we are at it.

Poeple: “Wow, it just does not matter how many times we have to say this, you Harper people just won’t listen! Or is it that you just won’t take NO for an answer?”

Go ahead, People. Keep on stomping your feet and kicking up a fuss. What’s next? You gonna hold your breath?

People#1 “Someone posted on the Prince George Citizen comment blog that there is only one oil terminal on the west coast of BC, namely the Kinder Morgan terminal in Burnaby / Vancouver.”

Slinky: “Um, that was you… here – blog/view/29807/1/moving+oil+to+port+by+rail+an+option?”

People#1 must be a paid shill. He/she is pretty active on the Citizen site as well, spewing the same nonsense.

Resorting to personal attacks? Stick to the topic and issue at hand JB, this news article is about a train derailment, explosion, and fire that closes Highway 16 west of Edmonton. That train was a CN train carrying petroleum products, including oil tank cars… hmm…

So Harper’s backup plan is to have this very same railway company haul hundreds of oil tanker cars through PG and towns and villages going west to the coast?

Wow, I am posting and commenting on some serious environmental and personal safety issues and all you can muster is personal attacks? I am not surprised, typical conservative tactics!

Apologies, that would be hundreds of train oil tanker cars “PER DAY” through PG and towns and villages going west to the coast.

People#1 …. in case you did not realize it “you Harper people” is a personal attack. In fact, it is a “class action” type of attack … a whole group at once, even though some in the group may not fit the profile.

JB is simply throwing it back at you. You are one of the most frequent one to resort to ad hominem attacks …

Nice of you to “moderate” gus, but tell me… in using the term “envio kooks” is that even remotely close to an offensive ad hominem like me saying “Harper people”?

How about this Conservative ad hominem gus; “If you are not in favour of this internet spying bill then you are siding with PEDOPHILES!!!

Do you understand gus? I am here to kick some conservative a$$ using their own rules, the gloves are off!!! They have been absolute BULLIES, it’s time to give them a taste of their own medicine!!!

From what I have seen since people #1 first appeared on the scene he/she responds to a reasoned and rational argument in one of two ways:disappear from the thread or begin the personal attacks, has happened with numerous other posters on countless threads.
If this pattern of behavior continues then perhaps it is time to treat him/her like the kid having a temper tantrum in the checkout line at the grocery store when told they cannot have a box of Smarties because it is almost suppertime who kicks and screams yelling ” I hate you” because they do not have a valid counterpoint to your argument.

Check this out.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/why-b-c-alberta-are-ending-their-pipeline-standoff-1.2126176?cmp=rss

People: “Do you understand gus? I am here to kick some conservative a$$ using their own rules, the gloves are off!!! They have been absolute BULLIES”

The problem is that you define a ‘bully’ as anyone who disagrees with you. I can’t help it if you can’t deal with an opposing view.

Thanks for links palomino, interesting read. From it I am extracting one crucial and important piece of information and fact:

“Despite assertions by federal ministers, B.C. voters still appear to be largely opposed to a big increase in the movement of oil across the province and along coastal waterways.”

The people who post that because the Liberal’s won the election, they now support the pipeline, or Tar Sands Oil on and off our coast may want to read palomino’s linked CBC news story. After reading it you will see just how far from “YES” two-faced Christy was willing to go to get elected!

A picture of Christy and Redford before the BC Election.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2012/07/20120727-115545.html

A picture of Christy and Redford after the BC Election.

http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1139587/thumbs/o-BC-ELECTIONS-2013-ALISON-REDFORD-CHRISTY-CLARK-facebook.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/news/bitumen-bubble&h=1024&w=1536&sz=360&tbnid=exDP87g0EeUcMM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=179&zoom=1&usg=__Df94xxlHDtPwoubKYYQx8SHyDpI=&docid=8NuVJp4JzgY08M&sa=X&ei=6H5lUqK2F8PKiwKaeA&ved=0CDAQ9QEwAA

I don’t think she won the election but rather the NDP lost it – partly due to the fact they told everyone that Kinder Morgan was a ‘no’ even before it was put on the table. Gave the undecided voters a glimpse into the crystal ball and a time machine jump back to the 90s.

I see your extraction and raise you an insertion: Christy left it on the table where Dix swept it off – you can’t even keep the name calling away from people not involved in the conversation. You kiss your momma with that mouth?

Yeah, I know what you mean slinky; “anyone not supporting their internet spying bill are with the pedophiles”, talk about painting an entire population with one brush. Seems a little hypocritical of you to point at me and not them on this matter doesn’t it?

Welp, time to provide some facts and figures (truths) about what we will be in for should oil by train replace the Enbridge pipeline.

The proposed Enbridge pipeline would have a startup capacity of 525,000 barrels of oil per day (b/d). This would ramp up to a maximum capacity of 850,000 b/d.

So… how many trains, how long, and how often would be required to deliver a similar equivalent of oil volume?

“By scaling up, 10 train-starts per day would handle 630,000 to 780,000 b/d of crude oil, and require 300 locomotives and 18,000 tank cars.2”

http://www.ctrf.ca/Proceedings/2013CrudeOilbyRailCairns.pdf

Wow, that is a lot of locomotives and oil tanker cars traveling through Prince George over a 15 day period, the diesel fumes from those locomotives alone would push us into a constant air quality advisory warnings, not to mention the increased risk of catastrophic derailments that always involve massive explosions and fires!

What a fresh “hell on earthy” scenario Harper, Christy and Alison are planning for us!

Lot easier just building a pipeline, hey?

Yeah, too bad British Columbians will not allow a pipeline to be built! Guess the only option is for Alberta to airlift it’s oil out.

Thanks for keeping this discussion thread open for so long Ben. The source for the information I quoted on the 300 locomotives and 18,000 oil tanker cars comes for Page 428 Figure 3 in the above website link.

A more detailed expose’ on this subject would be a good idea for Opinion 250. I think the residents of PG, Vanderhoof, Fort Fraser, Fraser Lake, Burns Lake should know what is being planned for them, this is big and serious stuff!!!