Northern Gateway Pipeline KILLED

[Canada Hockey Place]

^ Was going to reply to that guy. But thought, what's the point. Glad some else did.

Accusing someone else of misinformation and then throwing out that 99.99% was 100% funny though.

[TheRussianRocket.]

[DonLever]

The undisputed fact is that environmental groups are AGAINST ALL OIL PIPELINES including Kinder Morgan. They are dead set against the tar sands.

Opponents are buying into environmental groups propaganda.

[Ghostsof1915]

15:30. Shouldn't we try and find a better way to develop products for our energy needs?

Growing algae to fuel would generate more jobs, and they'd be OUR jobs, and it could be refined to sold to our ourselves instead of tapping oil sands, and building pipelines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eRyBpqJI8s

[Brick Tamland]

The undisputed fact is that environmental groups are AGAINST ALL OIL PIPELINES including Kinder Morgan. They are dead set against the tar sands.

Opponents are buying into environmental groups propaganda.

Yet, everything they eat, drive etc. either is built with oil, delivered by oil etc.

[Jester13]

I study political science and I am constantly thinking about strategy, and this is what I think is underlining this whole issue (it's quite basic):

Let's first keep in mind that Harper knows this pipeline will not be built any time soon, especially not before the election next year...

1. Harper and his government support the pipeline to show they are the pro-business. Then they can try to paint the other parties as anti-business. This will be easier to paint the NDP than the LPC.

2. Harper and his government will predict (correctly) that this move will likely alienate their party from BCers, however, they are probably banking on the byproduct of said alienation: a split vote. Splitting the vote in BC is a good thing for the CPC--at least they hope so.

or 3. The CPC has thrown in the towel already.

Meez thinks it's more #s 1 and 2

As much as I dislike our SMP electoral system ie wasted votes, and strategic voting, I really hope that BCers can realize that voting strategically next election is going to be a necessity in order to dethrone PMSH.

[nucklehead]

Yes, that's the reality. Everyone would (or should) agree that finding alternative fuels is necessary. The reality is that it hasn't happened yet. So until then, we all need petroleum and its byproducts. We are all deeply dependant on the byproducts especially. When we can satisfactorly replace fuels and all the byproducts we so heavily depend on then we can kiss pipelines goodbye. Until then, it's either move it by pipeline, rail or road. If you think another Lac Megantic is preferable to some spilled oil, which can be remedied, then that's your perspective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRb3JHsiqfA

[Heretic]

In what way will the pipeline reduce greenhouse gases? By building a pipeline and continuing the use of fossil fuels, the pipeline is only going to create more, whether it's through our consumption or the Chinese, where the stuff is supposed to be headed.

Secondly, Enbridge already has a poor record when it comes to spills and leaks—it's not like it hasn't happened to them before. Someone already posted the YouTube video of their horrible handling of a major leak in Michigan on this thread. Who's paying for that clean up? Taxpayers in Michigan and indirectly, the feds in the US.

As far as corporate "citizens" are concerned, Enbridge is one of the worst.

Edit: typos

The oil is currently being transported by transport trucks and trains.

The oil is going to be used anyways, get it to the final destination as cleanly as possible.

[johngould21]

The amount of misinformation and fear mongering by the opponents by the pipelines is staggering.

There are already thousands of pipelines crisscrossing Canada already. People focus on the mishaps but how about the non-mishaps. Oil and gas flow through pipelines with no problems 99.99% of the time.

Moreover, how about the hyprocisy of the opponents? I presume all them walk or bike to work and don't drive anywhere. Where dow do you think gas people use in their cars come from? Through pipelines.

This bitumen is not going to benefit Canadians, other than OIL Companies at all. Maximum 500 jobs when finished, all the risk involved, only to be delivered to foreign markets. NO thanks. It only takes .1% to make a disaster.

[I'm Your Huckleberry]

Ah yes, "democracy"

Won't get into this, it's a completely diff subject, but gave me a good laugh

I know, I cringed when I typed it. Can't deny that many people believe that we live in a democratic society though.

[YaK]

So how bout the part where they are transported through the Douglas Channel that isn't exactly a walk in the park for a oil tanker?

What Enbridge's video depicted Douglas Channel to look like:

What Douglas Channel is actually like:

Come on. They will cause a spill. There will be catastrophe. Is it worth the few jobs its going to create?

To put it mildly: Horse-poo

"Will cause a spill"? Not from a tanker. I don't know enough about pipelines to comment definitively on that end of things, but from what I've seen Enbridge's record is pretty bad.

As a Navigation Officer on a freighter (but fully qualified to hold that position on a super-tanker if I ever desired) I look at the islands from a navigation point of view and say "so what?" Yes... pilotage and escorts are the necessary precautions to be taken in an area like the Douglas Channel... but they are also, in my view, adequate. I find the misinformation and ignorance on both sides infuriating (anyone who has seen me post on these threads knows people acting like they know what is involved in navigating these ships is a pet peeve of mine).

This really comes down to a philosophical debate about resource extraction. Do you think we should be increasing our carbon footprint? If not, how much money do you feel that we're entitled to to forget about that? Do you have a price?

To me the project isn't worth it on that philosophical level. I also don't feel our coast is threatened.

As far as the project itself goes it is a question of risk/reward. The risk has been identified and it is being managed. An oil spill would be catastrophic... but the risk of one happening even with the normal practice of seamen is relatively low. The proposed steps being taken beyond those lower the chances even further to the point where I would agree the likelyhood of any major spill is well below my personal comfort level for risk.

As an aside, another pet peeve of mine is the news articles and propaganda showing protesters in front of freighters instead of tankers.... can anything scream ignorance any louder?

[I'm Your Huckleberry]

Yes we need oil. It's not going anywhere for awhile. However, we should be looking forward and try to prepare for that day. We need to be moving towards a greener economy. This is a necessity. By building this pipeline, Canada is putting all of its eggs in one basket and if we keep doubling down on oil, what motivation will the government have to pursue a greener economy when our country makes most of its money from oil?

From the very beginning, this project has been a sham. It's all about getting certain individuals a little bit richer, a little bit quicker by getting the oil out of the ground and into market as fast as possible. Those in charge of the project have shown a total disregard for British Columbians and in particular those who live in the communities most affected by the pipeline. They believe they can convince enough people for the project to go through by buying them out, muzzling scientists, blatantly lying, and having environmental standards eroded. If the project was that beneficial to the people inhabiting the land that the pipeline would affect and Enbridge was that outstanding corporate citizen they would like you to believe, do you think they would really need to do any of the listed above?

[I'm Your Huckleberry]

To put it mildly: Horse-poo

"Will cause a spill"? Not from a tanker. I don't know enough about pipelines to comment definitively on that end of things, but from what I've seen Enbridge's record is pretty bad.

As a Navigation Officer on a freighter (but fully qualified to hold that position on a super-tanker if I ever desired) I look at the islands from a navigation point of view and say "so what?" Yes... pilotage and escorts are the necessary precautions to be taken in an area like the Douglas Channel... but they are also, in my view, adequate. I find the misinformation and ignorance on both sides infuriating (anyone who has seen me post on these threads knows people acting like they know what is involved in navigating these ships is a pet peeve of mine).

This really comes down to a philosophical debate about resource extraction. Do you think we should be increasing our carbon footprint? If not, how much money do you feel that we're entitled to to forget about that? Do you have a price?

To me the project isn't worth it on that philosophical level. I also don't feel our coast is threatened.

As far as the project itself goes it is a question of risk/reward. The risk has been identified and it is being managed. An oil spill would be catastrophic... but the risk of one happening even with the normal practice of seamen is relatively low. The proposed steps being taken beyond those lower the chances even further to the point where I would agree the likelyhood of any major spill is well below my personal comfort level for risk.

As an aside, another pet peeve of mine is the news articles and propaganda showing protesters in front of freighters instead of tankers.... can anything scream ignorance any louder?

Fair point about ignorance on both sides. However, that is always the case when there a debate that has so many people emotionally involved. The question you have to ask is, whose ignorance has more dangerous implications?

Also, I would just like to point out that everybody is a little ignorant on the subject of navigating Douglas Channel in a supertanker because nobody has actually done it. You can say you think it could be done with pilots and tug boats after looking at a map, from the perspective of someone who works on freighters. I can say I think it can't be done from the perspective of someone who spends a lot of time on the water, has been in Douglas Channel in person, and has experienced the weather up there. We can only use the information at hand that we trust the most to come up with our own opinions.

[AK_19]

Curious what you all had to say about this:

http://www.andrewweavermla.ca/2014/02/09/british-columbia-alberta-tar-sands/

[I'm Your Huckleberry]

Curious what you all had to say about this:

http://www.andrewweavermla.ca/2014/02/09/british-columbia-alberta-tar-sands/

Is there anything in particular you're looking for comments on? Or on the article as a whole?

[stawns]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/northern-gateway-pipeline-recommended-for-federal-approval-with-conditions-1.2470465

A joint review panel has recommended the federal government approveEnbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline project, with conditions.

The approval hinges on 209 required conditions, including developing a marine mammal protection plan, researching heavy oil cleanup and conducting emergency response exercises.

The recommendation comes after more than a year of hearings in B.C. and Alberta.

The final decision, however, rests with the federal government, which has 180 days to decide.

• Northern Gateway pipeline project: 6 things to know
• Northern Gateway pipeline by the numbers
• On mobile? Click here to view interactive

The $6.5-billion pipeline would take bitumen from Alberta's oilsands to the B.C. coast for tanker export to Asia. But the controversial proposal has pitted Calgary-based Enbridge against environmental groups and several First Nations.

The pipeline has also been a lightning rod in the debate over climate change and has raised concerns about the effects an oil spill would have on environmentally sensitive areas along the B.C. coast.

The B.C. government had told the panel it did not support the pipeline as proposed, and more than 130 aboriginal bands signed a declaration against the project.

Alberta Premier Alison Redford had said she hoped the panel would endorse the proposed pipeline as her province strives to diversify market access for the oilsands.

Both the federal NDP and Liberals have voiced opposition to the project.

------------------------------------------------------

The first nations groups in this province have not agreed, the people have not approved. This has only been approved because it benefits "all Canadians"

But when asked about the people living on the coast in BC who would be affected in the event of a major spill the panel shuffled papers and kept reading. When asked about the loss of $1.4 billion in salmon and sport fishing the panel ignored the speaker. When asked about the $2.2 billion in tourism revenue lost int he event of a spill the panel kept reading and ignored the speaker.

The Clark government in BC is applauding this. They will receive $40 million a yer $1.2 billion over 30 years.

The Alberta government is applauding this, they will receive $32 billion over 30 years

The federal government is applauding this, they will receive almost $40 billion over 30 years.

The first nations speaker stood up at the end of the hearing and very clearly spoke. If you want a war in the woods we have just been invited to give you one.

As a citizen of BC and Canada I feel lied to betrayed and cheated right now.

The most telling feature from all of this is that under the FIPA/CIPA had this not gone through China and Chinese owned companies operating in canada had the rights to sue BC and the feds for tens of billions in "lost revenue"

Thanks for voting.

it's like they can't ship out our raw natural resources to foreign countries fast enough.......or cheap enough.

[AK_19]

Is there anything in particular you're looking for comments on? Or on the article as a whole?

The fact that he is the only elected Green Party MLA and a former climate scientist and believes:

-the climate change reasons for denying the pipeline are weak. " global warming potential of the Alberta tar sands, and in fact all global conventional and unconventional oil reserves, pale in comparison with the potential from coal and unconventional natural gas."

-he is largely in agreement with the BC Liberals on the five conditions but believes to fulfill "World-leading marine oil spill response, prevention and recovery systems for B.C.’s coastline and ocean to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines and shipments" we should be building a refinery in Kitimat and selling value-added oil products.

[King Heffy]

I have 2 issues with this pipeline, which have been pointed out by others:

• Kitimat is a completely unacceptable port to sail tankers into. I'll trust the word of people who have actually navigated the area over Enbridge shills.
• We're getting robbed financially. The product really does need to be refined here to present a viable business case.

Ship out of Prince Rupert and build a refinery to create long-term jobs and I drop my objections.

[AK_19]

I have 2 issues with this pipeline, which have been pointed out by others:

• Kitimat is a completely unacceptable port to sail tankers into. I'll trust the word of people who have actually navigated the area over Enbridge shills.
• We're getting robbed financially. The product really does need to be refined here to present a viable business case.

Ship out of Prince Rupert and build a refinery to create long-term jobs and I drop my objections.

I'm in the same boat as you.

[RUPERTKBD]

I have 2 issues with this pipeline, which have been pointed out by others:

• Kitimat is a completely unacceptable port to sail tankers into. I'll trust the word of people who have actually navigated the area over Enbridge shills.
• We're getting robbed financially. The product really does need to be refined here to present a viable business case.

Ship out of Prince Rupert and build a refinery to create long-term jobs and I drop my objections.

As a resident of Prince Rupert, I'd be fine with that, but as far as Douglas Channel goes, I'm going to agree with YaK.

The BC Coast Pilots Assn is on record saying that they are perfectly capable of navigating the DC with a supertanker. This is an excerpt from an article in the Northwest Coast Energy news, that I read this morning:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brown (of the Bureau of Shipping) then went on to discuss shipping in narrow waterways which he said were similar to Douglas Channel, including the Straits of Dover between Britain and France, the Straits of Malacca between Singapore and Malaysia and the island of Sumatra, the Dardanelles and Bosporus Strait in Turkey (which traditionally are said to join Europe with Asia) and the Panama Canal. All those areas, he said, see heavy shipping traffic, including tankers, each year.

The narrowest passage is in the Bosporus, which is 698 metres wide, a little less than one half nautical mile.

Comparing the Bosporus with Douglas Channel, Brown said Douglas Channel is much wider, about three kilometres, meaning that inbound and outbound ships can pass a half kilometre apart.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I heard a similar sentiment from a member of the BC Coast Pilots assn, who was interviewed on local radio here in P.R.

There are plenty of arguments against Enbridge, the proposed pipeline and shipping Bitumen overseas, but the dangers of navigating of Douglas channel is one of the weaker ones.

(Sorry for the poor formatting. My work computer uses an old version IE)