The Vancouver Business Thread

[Klazu]

These catastrophies don't come as surprises to these companies, but they don't take any actions unless the issue gets huge and lots of attention. Enbridge knew about Michigan and British Petroleum knew about the Gulf of Mexico. I wouldn't allow any pipeline being built on BC soil, not even for a higher price. They should move all oil (or refined petroleum) transfer on rails.

Better yet, Canada should not sell that much oil abroad, but instead use it for the benefit of Canadians themselves. In few decades it would become very handy to have petroleum for a decade for than the rest of the world...

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Klazu

These catastrophies don't come as surprises to these companies, but they don't take any actions unless the issue gets huge and lots of attention. Enbridge knew about Michigan and British Petroleum knew about the Gulf of Mexico. I wouldn't allow any pipeline being built on BC soil, not even for a higher price. They should move all oil (or refined petroleum) transfer on rails.

Better yet, Canada should not sell that much oil abroad, but instead use it for the benefit of Canadians themselves. In few decades it would become very handy to have petroleum for a decade for than the rest of the world...

But moving oil via rail is significanlty more risky. In fact moving oil via pipelines is the second safest method of moving it after oil tankers. Spills are rare, and with modern pipelines virtually unheard of. I actually cant think of a single significant spill from a pipeline built within the past decade, certainly I would love someone to point me to one. There is a big difference between pipelines built 50+ years ago like the one runing through the lower mainland and ones built today, same with oil tankers. The risk of a major spill from the norther gateway pipeline is statisticly insignificant. Thats not to say we shouldent be careful and try to protect our selves by milking every penny out of this.

I just cant understand how much bs the enviromental extrimist spew out and how succefull they have been at getting people to believe them.

[WaxItYourself]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-inv...-alberta-pipeline-review/article4352760/

"The regulator said 1,450 barrels of oil spilled from a pumping station on Enbridge’s Athabasca pipeline...The spill comes while crews are still working to clean up two other large leaks in Alberta, nearly 800,000 litres of oil from a Pace Oil & Gas Ltd...and 160,000 to 480,000 litres from a Plains Midstream Canada pipeline that ruptured beneath the Red Deer River."

The Athabascan pipeline first opened in 1999.

http://www.seankheraj.com/?p=1257

"In 2010, there were 20 crude oil pipeline failures and 241 multi-phase pipeline failures (carries crude oil and gas)... If we consider just the crude oil pipeline failures in 2010, there were an average of 1 pipeline failure every 18.25 days. If we include multi-phase pipeline failures, that’s 1 every 1.4 days."

I think you're mistaken.

[spaceprobe]

Originally Posted by Klazu

These catastrophies don't come as surprises to these companies, but they don't take any actions unless the issue gets huge and lots of attention. Enbridge knew about Michigan and British Petroleum knew about the Gulf of Mexico. I wouldn't allow any pipeline being built on BC soil, not even for a higher price. They should move all oil (or refined petroleum) transfer on rails.

Better yet, Canada should not sell that much oil abroad, but instead use it for the benefit of Canadians themselves. In few decades it would become very handy to have petroleum for a decade for than the rest of the world...

Problem is, the corporations (and the ruling goverment...ie Alberta and federal conservatives) are in it for short term money, and the corporations in particular don't have Canadian interests at heart....but rather profits are the centre of their action. Selling oil to Asia makes money now. Keeping oil for Canadian use in the future (and not on a free market in the future...but saved for Canadian use) will not earn them cash now or in the future.

[SpongeG]

the media seems to have ignored the oil spill near rainmbow lake - apparently the 3rd largest in alberta history yet not much mention of it, its been kept quiet - anyway its pretty bad, its leaked into muskeg and i have no idea how it can get cleaned up - lots of people were up there working on it but a lot of left, the area is expected to boom like crazy in the next 5 years, lots of work going on in the area, new camps going up and lots of deals going on

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by WaxItYourself

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-inv...-alberta-pipeline-review/article4352760/

"The regulator said 1,450 barrels of oil spilled from a pumping station on Enbridge’s Athabasca pipeline...The spill comes while crews are still working to clean up two other large leaks in Alberta, nearly 800,000 litres of oil from a Pace Oil & Gas Ltd...and 160,000 to 480,000 litres from a Plains Midstream Canada pipeline that ruptured beneath the Red Deer River."

The Athabascan pipeline first opened in 1999.

http://www.seankheraj.com/?p=1257

"In 2010, there were 20 crude oil pipeline failures and 241 multi-phase pipeline failures (carries crude oil and gas)... If we consider just the crude oil pipeline failures in 2010, there were an average of 1 pipeline failure every 18.25 days. If we include multi-phase pipeline failures, that’s 1 every 1.4 days."

I think you're mistaken.

1999 is much more then a decade ago.
The oil spills you are talking about are small, contained and insignificant. I am talking about major spills with far reaching consequences. There is allways a acceptable level of failiure that is manigable in every industry and aspect of life. Spills will happen, and yet it doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things.

I think you have backed up my point with your links.

I mean do you honestly think it matters if a couple thousand liters of oil spill in to a lake along the route or some soil? No it doesnt matter as it effects a insignificant percantage of the environment it gets cleaned up, contained, and we learn from it. I suppose you are one of those that see the pipeline as a 1000+km drip hose that will spew oil along its entire length and contaminate every cm of soil within 10km of its right of way? Spilling a million barrels of oil in to the Fraser river is bad, these type of spills simply dont happen, and the few times they have in the past they still had a insignificant effect on a global scale. Spilling a few thousand barrels of oil in to some creek —, but doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things.

Oh and im most certainly not some oil industry cheerleader, I dont like giant corporations one bit.

*by the way in 2009 CP moved 500 rail cars of oil per year (250,000 barrels per year). By 2014 they will be moving 75,000 rail cars per year (100,000 barrels per day). CN has simeral numbers, and today there are already close to 100,000 barrels of oil moved by rail every day in Canada. In Wahsington state their Cherry point refinary now recieves 30,000 barrels of oil by rail every day. In LA they build a facility to handle 130,000 barrels of oil every day by rail.

As I said carefull what you wish for as rail derailements are much more common and difficult to prevent.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by spaceprobe

Problem is, the corporations (and the ruling goverment...ie Alberta and federal conservatives) are in it for short term money, and the corporations in particular don't have Canadian interests at heart....but rather profits are the centre of their action. Selling oil to Asia makes money now. Keeping oil for Canadian use in the future (and not on a free market in the future...but saved for Canadian use) will not earn them cash now or in the future.

To play the devils advocate.

a) Canada has enough oil that can be extracted to supply the worlds needs for over a 100 years at current demand levels.

b) If you ever had a older brother or sister you should know what happens when you try to save a piece of bacon for later instead of consuming it right away. Nice in theory, prone to failure.

[WaxItYourself]

Originally Posted by cornholio

1999 is much more then a decade ago.
The oil spills you are talking about are small, contained and insignificant. I am talking about major spills with far reaching consequences. There is allways a acceptable level of failiure that is manigable in every industry and aspect of life. Spills will happen, and yet it doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things.

I think you have backed up my point with your links.

I mean do you honestly think it matters if a couple thousand liters of oil spill in to a lake along the route or some soil? No it doesnt matter as it effects a insignificant percantage of the environment it gets cleaned up, contained, and we learn from it. I suppose you are one of those that see the pipeline as a 1000+km drip hose that will spew oil along its entire length and contaminate every cm of soil within 10km of its right of way? Spilling a million barrels of oil in to the Fraser river is bad, these type of spills simply dont happen, and the few times they have in the past they still had a insignificant effect on a global scale. Spilling a few thousand barrels of oil in to some creek —, but doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things.

Oh and im most certainly not some oil industry cheerleader, I dont like giant corporations one bit.

*by the way in 2009 CP moved 500 rail cars of oil per year (250,000 barrels per year). By 2014 they will be moving 75,000 rail cars per year (100,000 barrels per day). CN has simeral numbers, and today there are already close to 100,000 barrels of oil moved by rail every day in Canada. In Wahsington state their Cherry point refinary now recieves 30,000 barrels of oil by rail every day. In LA they build a facility to handle 130,000 barrels of oil every day by rail.

As I said carefull what you wish for as rail derailements are much more common and difficult to prevent.

You said 50 years not a decade ago. Stating that the oil spills were small and insignificant is false.
We learn from it, explain why there continues to be 1 pipe malfunction every 2 days. Who said I wanted them to come by train as well? That wasn't my argument. I am just pointing out your errors. you're also putting words in my mouth. Basically your argument is a spill is a spill regardless if it destroys the ecosystem it will have no effect on the world as a whole. That's a silly argument.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by cornholio

To play the devils advocate.

a) Canada has enough oil that can be extracted to supply the worlds needs for over a 100 years at current demand levels.

Uhhhh.. got some stats to back that up?

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Uhhhh.. got some stats to back that up?

http://www.oilsandsquest.com/our_projects/industry_information.html

Ok so some 60 years. Looking at recoverable as we see it now would be 10-15 years. But that doesnt include 10billion offshore barrels in BC and a potential up to a 100 billion barrels in the arctic and whats left in the Atlantic. Regardless you cant just pump it all out at the same time and as this one of many articles sugests we can "maintain" a production of over 3million barrels a day just out of Alberta for the next 150 years, not taking in to account conventional reserves elsewhere that I mentioned ealier. As it stands we produce somwehere around 1.5million barrels a day from our oil sands, so we can double that and maintain it for the next 150 years. This is assuming no technological advancement and oil prices stagnating at todays levels.

Oil wise we are just fine to max out our production and still allways be left with plenty for our own needs.

But I admit its less then a 100 years right now. But then again there's plenty more oil elswhere in the world.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by WaxItYourself

You said 50 years not a decade ago. Stating that the oil spills were small and insignificant is false.
We learn from it, explain why there continues to be 1 pipe malfunction every 2 days. Who said I wanted them to come by train as well? That wasn't my argument. I am just pointing out your errors. you're also putting words in my mouth. Basically your argument is a spill is a spill regardless if it destroys the ecosystem it will have no effect on the world as a whole. That's a silly argument.

I said a decade ago, but I also said that over the past 50 years we have had come a long way in pipeline and tanker technology. I also don't like to see any spills, but spills will always happen. We will always have a impact on the environment, be it logging, building cities, power generation, transportation, oil, etc. There is such a thing as a manageable level of oil spillage. So long as the percentage of contaminated ecosystems is always within a manageable amount at any given point in time then its all fine and dandy imo. Its not much different then logging or mining or anything else we do, we don't try to eliminate our impact as that is not possible, rather we try to keep it low enough for the environment as a whole to keep functioning and for it to be able to recover where it has been damaged.

On a global scale we certainly have not been doing a good job, there are simply too many people to sustainably support with todays technology. But this is generally not a problem in Canada and this oil pipeline simply does not have the potential to inflict a wound on our environment that it could not recover from very easily.

We can agree to disagree. /rant

[WaxItYourself]

Originally Posted by cornholio

I said a decade ago, but I also said that over the past 50 years we have had come a long way in pipeline and tanker technology. I also don't like to see any spills, but spills will always happen. We will always have a impact on the environment, be it logging, building cities, power generation, transportation, oil, etc. There is such a thing as a manageable level of oil spillage. So long as the percentage of contaminated ecosystems is always within a manageable amount at any given point in time then its all fine and dandy imo. Its not much different then logging or mining or anything else we do, we don't try to eliminate our impact as that is not possible, rather we try to keep it low enough for the environment as a whole to keep functioning and for it to be able to recover where it has been damaged.

On a global scale we certainly have not been doing a good job, there are simply too many people to sustainably support with todays technology. But this is generally not a problem in Canada and this oil pipeline simply does not have the potential to inflict a wound on our environment that it could not recover from very easily.

We can agree to disagree. /rant

After looking at it again it seems I misread your original post. However, any spills is too large. You can claim that it is being cleaned up adequately but those spills mentioned above are still having major impacts on the ecosystems they affected and they will continue to do so. You do have a point with logging and mining. But that is why they are currently changing the way they do things in those areas or there are people complaining about them as well. clear cutting = bad.

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/publications/00217/atcc.htm

Things like strip mining - bad.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901198000148

I do realize that some things are more manageable than others. However, as oil spills will affect ecosystems for quite a long time, I don't see any sort of small, medium or large spill being manageable. I agree that we will have to disagree

[204]

Originally Posted by WaxItYourself

After looking at it again it seems I misread your original post. However, any spills is too large. You can claim that it is being cleaned up adequately but those spills mentioned above are still having major impacts on the ecosystems they affected and they will continue to do so. You do have a point with logging and mining. But that is why they are currently changing the way they do things in those areas or there are people complaining about them as well. clear cutting = bad.

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/publications/00217/atcc.htm

Things like strip mining - bad.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901198000148

I do realize that some things are more manageable than others. However, as oil spills will affect ecosystems for quite a long time, I don't see any sort of small, medium or large spill being manageable. I agree that we will have to disagree

Oh yes. Oil spills. I've never seen an anti-tanker campaign opposing OPEC tankers bringing Saudi oil to eastern Canada. They've never had a protest against the pipeline that brings OPEC oil from a port in Maine up to Montreal. OPEC tankers even sail right up the St. Lawrence. Very curious lot you are.

[204]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Uhhhh.. got some stats to back that up?

"Myth: The World Is Running Out of Oil". ABC News. 12 May 2006.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1954572

[WaxItYourself]

Originally Posted by 204

Oh yes. Oil spills. I've never seen an anti-tanker campaign opposing OPEC tankers bringing Saudi oil to eastern Canada. They've never had a protest against the pipeline that brings OPEC oil from a port in Maine up to Montreal. OPEC tankers even sail right up the St. Lawrence. Very curious lot you are.

What in the world does your post have to do with what I stated? We are discussing the oil pipeline. We haven't even started on the tankers. We are discussing the pipeline and how occurrences happen with it every 2 days or so. We are discussing Enbridge, the worst oil company that has received the most faults in recent times. We are discussing how with their Michigan spill they waited 5 years after first discovering the error, and a large spill actually did occur, to fix it. You are saying "Well gee people have been complaining about other things so therefor your point is mute." Your statement has nothing to do with my point.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by 204

"Myth: The World Is Running Out of Oil". ABC News. 12 May 2006.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1954572

Considering we are using crude oil up at roughly ~70,000 times the speed in which it is being produced, yes we are running out.

[red-paladin]

Perhaps it would be good to stick to the thread's topic?

[craneSpotter]

Take ‘n’ bake pizza chain charts huge expansion

BIV - Glen Korstrom (link)
Tue Sep 4, 2012

Canadian master franchisors of U.S. pizza giant Papa Murphy’s are set to add three stores later this month to their current 15 locations and expect that within five years there will be 80 such pizza stores across Canada.

The new stores will be in Surrey, Metro Edmonton and Winnipeg.

“We see ourselves at 30 stores within the next year or year and a half,” Papa Murphy's Pizza Canada owner Chuck van der Lee told Business in Vancouver Friday.

[craneSpotter]

Spectra, BG make big pipeline bet in the race to B.C.’s coast

The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Sep. 10 2012

Spectra Energy Corp. and BG Group PLC are proposing a new pipeline megaproject to carry natural gas to the British Columbia coast for export to Asian markets, making it the largest bet yet that the province’s energy riches will find a home abroad in a high-stakes race worth tens of billions of dollars.

The two companies envisage brisk demand for B.C. natural gas from customers in Japan, China and South Korea, and big potential in India and Thailand, said Doug Bloom, president of Spectra’s Western Canadian operations...

...“It’s British Columbia that has a massive resource base, and that’s where the bulk of the supply will come from,” Mr. Bloom said in an interview Monday in Spectra’s Vancouver office. “There are enormous amounts of domestic supply and production capability that are way in excess of domestic needs.”

Houston-based Spectra and BG of Reading, England, will be 50-50 owners in the pipeline estimated to cost up to $8-billion, with Spectra building the line and BG filling it with natural gas.

The pipeline plans serve as an insight into the size of the terminal BG is looking to construct. Based on research by CIBC World Markets Inc. earlier this year examining the cost of liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals in Australia, such a project in Canada could cost $24-billion to $32-billion for the terminal alone, although costs between the two countries aren’t directly comparable.

Proposed gas pipelines and LNG terminals:

[craneSpotter]

Burnaby, BC headquartered Best Buy Canada/Future Shop are on an IT hiring spree. I think it wlso has something to do with their newly expanded selection of home/garden/tools; Beauty health baby; Travel sports and outdoor equipment. Most of this new stuff is web-only right now. Shipped from their massive Vancouver area and TO area warehouses.

Best Buy Canada and Future Shop Launch IT Hiring Spree

TechVibes - Rob Lewis - Sep 18, 2012 (link)

Canada's two top consumer electronics retailers, Best Buy Canada and Future Shop, are estimating a 70% increase in headcount for their IT teams this year.

Already experiencing significant growth, the Best Buy Canada and Future Shop IT team has doubled in head count over the past twelve months, with a forecast to triple in size by the end of this year. The majority of this growth has been in new roles in the areas of Technology Infrastructure, Application Development and Maintenance.