andyt andyt:
You didn't read the article?
$1:
The Quebec government had previously called on TransCanada to comply with its environmental regulations in letters sent to the company in 2014.
"Unfortunately, we never received a response to these letters," Heurtel told the news conference.
TransCanada has not replied to Quebec's requests for formal notice, saying Energy East is subject only to federal regulation.
And then companies wonder why they encounter opposition. The days of just being able to ram a project thru seem to be over - you have to obtain some degree of consensus first. It was the same here with Northern Gateway - you can't just expect to ram a pipe thru, we take the environmental risks while the profits go elsewhere.
Yes, and it's true. Federal regulations take precedent. Which provincial regulations will they be subject to that they weren't subject to with the existing pipeline?
andyt andyt:
Just heard about a proposal to ship Ft McMurray bitumen by rail to Alaska. I wonder if rail shipment of bitumen is actually safer than pipeline. The chance of a spill might be larger, but as the proponent pointed out, bitumen just puddles around a train spill, doesn't go anywhere, and the volume of a spill would likely be much less than with a pipe a la Kalamazoo.
I heard that too. I don't know, it sounds like it would be higher volume than a pipeline. And if the route were intended for bitumen, they could make the rail line with Bitumen in mind - heavy rock base, perhaps even some architectural fabric underlay to prevent seepage in the event of a spill . . .
But it can't be cheaper or faster than building a pipeline.
