Route safety

Share this page

Post your comment

All comments are moderated, not based on their opinion, but on the presentation of fact-based and constructive dialogue and compliance with our terms and conditions.
Comments
  • Geophysicist for responsible energy, Aug 14th, 2013 (1 year ago)

    Dean Chatterson,

    You say that it is a mistaken context is ok. That is just unreasonable. How could anything anywhere ever get done without at least some risk? You can't even cross the street without some level of risk. To presume that an industrial project has to be completely without any risk is the mistaken context. There isn't a project in the world, and that includes so called 'green energy' projects that can be undertaken without risk.

    What's important is that a high standard of safety is worked towards with every effort. I wouldn't approve of a pipeline plan that hasn't made every consideration for safety and environmental issues. But to hold a zero-risk standard is not just unreasonable, it's harmful.

    I think reasonable minds will prevail here and the pipeline will go in.

  • Northern Gateway, Feb 22nd, 2013 (2 years ago)

    Hi Andre-Marcel, thanks for your comment and question.

    The video is a very high-level discussion of the types of issues that the route designers, geotechnical engineers and other experts are examining with this project; it's not an all-encompassing outline of the existing hazards.

    The NEB is currently hearing examination of the Northern Gateway project application. Back in October 2012, in Prince George, BC, experts like Drum Cavers who is featured in the video above, gave evidence and answered questions about the work that they'd done on the application.

    Have you had a chance to review the geotechnical analysis included in the application? You can find the application here: http://www.northerngateway.ca/project-details/regulatory-consultation-and-application/ & technical data is also found here: http://www.northerngateway.ca/project-details/technical-data-review/

  • Andre-Marcel Baril, Feb 21st, 2013 (2 years ago)

    The Engineer discusses the issues pertaining to landslides predominantly within Alberta, from which I would assume the main area of concern is Fox Creek and Whitecourt, which experienced flooding and subsequent events of mass-wasting stemming from the above bankfull level rivers removing the sheer strength of the river valley walls just this past summer in late July. However, why is the area of Northern BC, particularly west of Fort St. James in which the pipeline is set to traverse the Sutherland River, the major spawning stream for the rare breed of pelagic rainbow trout which inhabit Babine Lake. The Sutherland River, like all rivers, experiences similar fluctuations in its water level, and as such the same concern that is mentioned about Western Alberta, is equivalent in this environment. So, to get to the point, I would like to know makes the Albertan environment more treacherous for mass wasting events that the Sutherland River valley, and what plans have been implemented beyond attempting to bypass the obstacles in order to provide immediate access to fix a rupture in the pipeline, and avoid the problem in general?

  • Dean Chatterson, Nov 28th, 2012 (2 years ago)

    In using words like mitigation and by admitting that you have concern about a mishap, you are acknowledging that a rupture (disaster) may occur. what you don't seem to understand that even the potential for a rupture and the devastating results are reason enough for this pipeline not to be built. I'm struck by the well intentioned and sincere demeanor of the speaker but it all comes from a mistaken context that some risk is OK.

  • Northern Gateway, Nov 05th, 2012 (2 years ago)

    Hi N/ACanadianConservation,

    This blog post addresses the recent seismic events off the coast of Haida Gwaii: http://www.northerngateway.ca/news-and-media/northern-gateway-blogs/pipeline-safety/earthquake-on-the-queen-charlotte-fault/

  • N/ACanadianConservation, Nov 03rd, 2012 (2 years ago)

    Enbridge,

    Your chief engineer claimed PGA was roughly 12% whereas Lower Mainland stands at approximately 46%(?).
    Considering the magnitude 7.7 earthquake that struck slightly West off the Queen Charlotte Islands on October 10th at 20:04, is the chief engineers data correct?
    After shocks continued on Oct. 29, 30, and the 31st.

    Has this new evidence caused a rethink in disaster assessment and management of the Northern Gateway Pipline?

    Any information would be greatly appreciated

  • Northern Gateway, Oct 19th, 2012 (2 years ago)

    Hi Daina, thanks for you comment. Our commenting guidelines are here: http://www.northerngateway.ca/news-and-media/northern-gateway-blogs/blog-commenting-guidelines/

    Not all comments left on our website are published, but we're transparent in the reasons why some may not. We can assure you that once published, comments are not deleted unless the original author requests for them to be.

  • Daina, Oct 18th, 2012 (2 years ago)

    I think Enbridge is deleting comments

  • Lisa Cawol, Oct 16th, 2012 (2 years ago)

    This video is very good, it tells how they avoid the pipelines leaking in a very true and predictable way.

  • Alex Carruthers, Sep 04th, 2012 (2 years ago)

    Considering the importance of this project it seems funny that nobody has commented on this video yet... Some very intriguing perspectives on this controversial project are presented here. Hopefully more people leave comments on this page and Enbridge allows them to be heard.

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments

Tanker safety VIDEO

Marine Safety video