Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Northern Gateway Pipeline Approved.

Report

  • Please log in to reply
363 replies to this topic

#31 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,881 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 19 December 2013 - 03:53 PM

A politician with long term vision had better have dollar signs firmly in their site. Those that don't will end up not having to pay for healthcare, our existing debt, our massive infrasturture deficit that are all on top of our already existing huge shortfalls in CPP and public sector pensions that those who fail at math don't even realise exist.


Short term gains for long term pain is not the answer to any of those problems Ron. You know that better than most people here.
  • 1
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#32 Hyzer

Hyzer

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,919 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 12

Posted 19 December 2013 - 03:57 PM

The sad thing is, we all probably knew this was going to happen no matter what.

This ends badly.


I worked in Kitimat for a bit and I can tell you that everyone in that town knew years ago the pipeline was going through.
  • 0

#33 Langdon Algur

Langdon Algur

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,794 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 07

Posted 19 December 2013 - 03:58 PM

Brutal

"The report issued today said while impacts of a large oil spill would be huge", this right here is reason enough to say no to this.
  • 2

Play Clash on Clans on your phone? Join the CDC Clan "happycanuck".


"What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?" ~ Henry David Thoreau

CDC's 2014 draft preferences vs. Canucks actual picks
http://forum.canucks...g-2014-edition/


#34 DIBdaQUIB

DIBdaQUIB

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,990 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 10

Posted 19 December 2013 - 03:58 PM

What's amazing to me is that people who are against this have no alternative solution to get the oil to Asia.
It is going to get there one way or another.

They just like to complain.

The governments and what have you have come up with 209 conditions before any oil can move down the line.

This might not be the 100% guaranteed no issues whatsoever solution, but it's the best they have right now.
Transporting by vehicle would create far more chances that something goes wrong and more greenhouse gases.

Do I have a better solution? Nope, I'm afraid not.

Am I happy with the current solution? Not really, but I see how it's the best way right now.

Sad but true.

So many of those opposed to this have good arguments but fail to take into account how they themselves contribute to this. I live in the Kootenays on a reservoir that was once pristine wilderness with wildlife and farms. Now it is a huge fluctuating lake, made this way so that the citizens of BC can enjoy abundant, reliable and affordable electricity. Most British Columbians don't see this so they just blissfully use this power to live in the city with all its neon lights and massive power consumption.

I was in Vancouve rlast week and had the pleasure(?) of watching the thousands upon thousands of vehicles all day coming and going/commuting around the city. The amount of oil/gas required to fuel this lifestyle is mind-boggling. Yet, when the oil companies suggest increasing piping capacity to send these product to the lower mainland, everyone is up in arms :not in my back yard".

To all these people, what is your solution? Should everyone buy a horse? Will you be happy when farmland for food becomes grazing land for those horses? Most of the "anti" crowd are as much consumers of these products as everyone else but they are incapable of connecting the dots as to where the power and fuel that sustains their lifestyle comes from. They would rather import oil and gas from the Middle East, destroying their lands and risking the oceans transporting it than see anything in their own backyard.


Am I nervous about the pipeline, hell yes. DO I think the fate should be in the hands of first-nations,hell no - I've had some first hand dealings with their "protector of the land" policies and this is about $$$$$ and power for them. They mention Oka etc...that was a war brought about because the police tried to stem the flow of illegal guns, drugs and other products being smuggled through the reserve...what a noble cause!!

I hope there are sufficient conditions in place to make this as safe as it possibly can be but I, like everyone I know, has not right to live in this society and have an attitude that as long as it's not happening where I live, I'm fine with whatever happens somewhere else.
  • 4

#35 Jester13

Jester13

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,911 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 09

Posted 19 December 2013 - 04:04 PM

I think what bothers me the most about this whole project is that the people in charge have to be forced into performing safety studies and come up with standards. This is something they should have taken the initiative on, come to Canadians with, and then maybe, just maybe they would have more support for the project.

BP's "accident" was known about in advance and nothing was done to prevent it from happening because it would have cost them money in the short term. This is a rampant problem everywhere from the smallest to largest incidents, and something that our governments ostensibly seem to be repeating.

Alas, that's just how the oil industry works: penny wise, dollar stupid.
  • 3

"Education is the inoculator for ignorance."


#36 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,881 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 19 December 2013 - 04:05 PM

Sad but true.


No, the best way would be to refine it here, creating more, better and longer term jobs and a safer product to transport. To have better assurances that the companies profiting from OUR oil would be solely responsible for all damages both environmental and monetary, short and long term if there are ever any issues. That OUR resources aren't being sold off to China based on their demands for the lowest possible dollar. That BC gets a fairer share of those dollars for the large amount of risk it's taking on for transporting it over our land and out of our ports on our coastlines.

I agree that a pipeline was a forgone conclusion and is currently the best and safest way to accomplish moving it. It's all the surrounding issues that are the problem.


  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#37 Dion Phaneuf

Dion Phaneuf

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,830 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 12

Posted 19 December 2013 - 04:09 PM

I'm anticipating a disaster...not a fan of the route.

On a positive note, seems like a good business opportunity to build in the North...lots of major projects in the works.
  • 0

gallery_47851_23_84084.png

medium.png - CDCGML 483288048.png - EHL  medium.png - CDCFL


#38 Warhippy

Warhippy

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,478 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 13

Posted 19 December 2013 - 04:12 PM

Who made them the ultimate unvoted for authority of the land? If they want to illegally start a violent campaign let them - we can then just toss them in jail.

When you talk about trespassing on first nations land without first nations approval, they ARE the ultimate law on their land.

end of story, no argument needed or persuasive enough to change that
  • 1
CIaude Giroux Posted 27 June 2014 - 04:15 PM


He's out for 6 months (which will hinder his development) and he really needs that development. There's already worries that he won't translate to the NHL and he'll end up a huge ass bust.

 

 


#39 Warhippy

Warhippy

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,478 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 13

Posted 19 December 2013 - 04:14 PM

Or they can cave, cancel it, have no way of coming close to balancing the budget or financing the beloved social programs Canadians take for granted and face the wrath of the entire electorate both right and left wing.

Seems obvious to me that it's getting built even if you elect the green party of bc and have our new leader doing a sit in on the oil route to the sea with an army of native warriors behind them - it's getting built anyways, just as I predicted.

It will be tied up for years if not decades in court before ground ever gets broken in BC
  • 0
CIaude Giroux Posted 27 June 2014 - 04:15 PM


He's out for 6 months (which will hinder his development) and he really needs that development. There's already worries that he won't translate to the NHL and he'll end up a huge ass bust.

 

 


#40 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,653 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 19 December 2013 - 04:15 PM

Sorry, but where in the article does it say "the BC government is applauding" this decision? Last I heard, they opposed the project. In fact, it say so right in the article posted by the OP.

If they'd had a change of heart on the matter, one would think that CBC news would have mentioned it in the article, n'est-ce pas?
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#41 Warhippy

Warhippy

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,478 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 13

Posted 19 December 2013 - 04:17 PM

Sorry, but where in the article does it say "the BC government is applauding" this decision? Last I heard, they opposed the project. In fact, it say so right in the article posted by the OP.

If they'd had a change of heart on the matter, one would think that CBC news would have mentioned it in the article, n'est-ce pas?

Last week Clark was applauding this move saying if the conditions were met and the NEB approved it it should be as good as done. Today Polak was saying otherwise
  • 0
CIaude Giroux Posted 27 June 2014 - 04:15 PM


He's out for 6 months (which will hinder his development) and he really needs that development. There's already worries that he won't translate to the NHL and he'll end up a huge ass bust.

 

 


#42 RAMBUTANS

RAMBUTANS

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,410 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 06

Posted 19 December 2013 - 04:18 PM

As a person who works indirectly for the oil industry while living in the lower mainland, I applaud this decision. More jobs for Canadians is always a good thing. If there's no pipeline the oil will get to the BC coast by train anyway,
  • 2
Mr. Reputable of the HFBoards

#43 DIBdaQUIB

DIBdaQUIB

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,990 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 10

Posted 19 December 2013 - 04:18 PM

When you talk about trespassing on first nations land without first nations approval, they ARE the ultimate law on their land.

end of story, no argument needed or persuasive enough to change that

Honest question - have you ever dealt with first nations? Have you ever negotiated with them in regards to how they view "First Nations Lands or what this constitutes?

Terrible wrongs were don't to many of these people in the past, many wrongs continue, some of the worst by their own "leaders" against their own people. If you think giving them the authority to decide on matters of national or provincial interests is some kind of panacea for the woes of our society, you are sadly mistaken!!
  • 2

#44 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,653 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 19 December 2013 - 04:20 PM

Last week Clark was applauding this move saying if the conditions were met and the NEB approved it it should be as good as done. Today Polak was saying otherwise


Hmmm....

I would have thought that such a statement would have been big news in BC. I also would have expected a flood of Christy slamming from the resident Liberal/Conservative haters here on CDC...

...strange days indeed....
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#45 RAMBUTANS

RAMBUTANS

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,410 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 06

Posted 19 December 2013 - 04:23 PM

Hmmm....

I would have thought that such a statement would have been big news in BC. I also would have expected a flood of Christy slamming from the resident Liberal/Conservative haters here on CDC...

...strange days indeed....

Money changes everything. Way of the world.

Edited by RAMBUTANS, 19 December 2013 - 04:23 PM.

  • 0
Mr. Reputable of the HFBoards

#46 Blackberries

Blackberries

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,717 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 07

Posted 19 December 2013 - 04:36 PM

Sad day for BC.

Guess what Alberta and China wants, Alberta and China gets.

Id take a healthy environment over 20,000 non permanent jobs any day.


  • 4

OXwjSoG.gif
 


#47 Langdon Algur

Langdon Algur

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,794 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 07

Posted 19 December 2013 - 04:37 PM

As a person who works indirectly for the oil industry while living in the lower mainland, I applaud this decision. More jobs for Canadians is always a good thing. If there's no pipeline the oil will get to the BC coast by train anyway,


It's not it going to the BC coast I object to, its going to Kitimat harbour. Having large scale oiltankers traveling through the narrow channels to get to Kitimat is just asking for disaster. If you want to get oil (or Bitumen in this case) to the BC coast why not just twin existing pipelines like the Transmountain. As for jobs what about all the people (fishermen, tourist operators) who depend on a healthy coast for their jobs?
  • 0

Play Clash on Clans on your phone? Join the CDC Clan "happycanuck".


"What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?" ~ Henry David Thoreau

CDC's 2014 draft preferences vs. Canucks actual picks
http://forum.canucks...g-2014-edition/


#48 I'm Your Huckleberry

I'm Your Huckleberry

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 903 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 06

Posted 19 December 2013 - 04:48 PM

If we keep doubling down on oil to grow our economy, what motivation will Canada have to pursue alternatives? Oil might be a necessary evil right now but greener technologies will begin phasing it out. If we don't pursue these alternatives and be leaders in green energy, we are going to be way behind the 8-ball down the road.

Doubling down on oil is a very short sighted move to line the pockets of certain corporations and individuals as quickly as possible. All while they keep telling us "it's good for the economy".

Edited by The Manatee King, 19 December 2013 - 04:48 PM.

  • 4

2a854ac1-b75d-49bc-acf4-1e2705c9e1c3_zps


#49 Warhippy

Warhippy

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,478 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 13

Posted 19 December 2013 - 04:49 PM

Honest question - have you ever dealt with first nations? Have you ever negotiated with them in regards to how they view "First Nations Lands or what this constitutes?

Terrible wrongs were don't to many of these people in the past, many wrongs continue, some of the worst by their own "leaders" against their own people. If you think giving them the authority to decide on matters of national or provincial interests is some kind of panacea for the woes of our society, you are sadly mistaken!!

I am actually a first nations individual. I carry a card or status id. I have ancestral lands in Manitoba and a recognized band.

If in fact you think the federal government can push a pipeline through first nations land, you are the one who is sadly mistaken. Federal and provincial law are all well and good, but without first nations consent, unanimous consent from the many bands along the proposed route, nothing gets done

Edited by Warhippy, 19 December 2013 - 04:50 PM.

  • 0
CIaude Giroux Posted 27 June 2014 - 04:15 PM


He's out for 6 months (which will hinder his development) and he really needs that development. There's already worries that he won't translate to the NHL and he'll end up a huge ass bust.

 

 


#50 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,881 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 19 December 2013 - 04:50 PM

If we keep doubling down on oil to grow our economy, what motivation will Canada have to pursue alternatives? Oil might be a necessary evil right now but greener technologies will begin phasing it out. If we don't pursue these alternatives and be leaders in green energy, we are going to be way behind the 8-ball down the road.

Doubling down on oil is a very short sighted move to line the pockets of certain corporations and individuals as quickly as possible. All while they keep telling us "it's good for the economy".


Posted Image
  • 1
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#51 Warhippy

Warhippy

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,478 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 13

Posted 19 December 2013 - 04:59 PM

*
POPULAR

If we keep doubling down on oil to grow our economy, what motivation will Canada have to pursue alternatives? Oil might be a necessary evil right now but greener technologies will begin phasing it out. If we don't pursue these alternatives and be leaders in green energy, we are going to be way behind the 8-ball down the road.

Doubling down on oil is a very short sighted move to line the pockets of certain corporations and individuals as quickly as possible. All while they keep telling us "it's good for the economy".

This exactly. As a resource nation we lose out on tens of billions of dollars a year in refining and resale monies.

BC is a prime example of that via the softwood issues. We now just export raw logs and have lost billions in this province alone because we now have few mills, few logging jobs and even fewer refining or manufacturing jobs.

The all mighty pursuit of oil pushed by this federal government is beyond foolish. In Alberta with all of their vaunted oil wealth they're running an ever increasing deficit, have closed some schools in some parts of the province form 5 to 4 days a week and actually have hospitals laying off staff and in 2 incidents closing their doors. Yet they still give money over to billion dollar profiting oil companies. This is an unhealthy business model.

now if we listen to the claims that oil will save this country and take into account both venezuela supplying more oil, the USA our largest purchaser becoming self sufficient in the next decade and now Iran playing ball and dumping oil onto the market, easily produced cheap oil we see an inevitable glut.

Added the new massive fields opened in Russia by Gazprom and the massive fields in North eastern Australia, this will drive the price of oil even further down.

The sad thing is that they will push ever more oil out of this country at ever lower prices and tell us it is a good thing. As a moderately educated person I cannot look at this in any way where I don't scratch my head and ask wtf are you thinking.

This is not a good thing in any sense of the world. They are risking the environment, the livelihoods of thousands of fishermen, the great bear sea and the great bear rainforest and have lied to us about both the rewards and the benefits.

I am all for a pipeline if built properly, I am all for economic benefits to this country, but not with a single minded economy lacking anything even resembling diversification where one 10 cent drop spells unemployment for tens of thousands of people
  • 6
CIaude Giroux Posted 27 June 2014 - 04:15 PM


He's out for 6 months (which will hinder his development) and he really needs that development. There's already worries that he won't translate to the NHL and he'll end up a huge ass bust.

 

 


#52 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,179 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 19 December 2013 - 05:02 PM

I was in Vancouve rlast week and had the pleasure(?) of watching the thousands upon thousands of vehicles all day coming and going/commuting around the city. The amount of oil/gas required to fuel this lifestyle is mind-boggling. Yet, when the oil companies suggest increasing piping capacity to send these product to the lower mainland, everyone is up in arms :not in my back yard".

To all these people, what is your solution? Should everyone buy a horse? Will you be happy when farmland for food becomes grazing land for those horses? Most of the "anti" crowd are as much consumers of these products as everyone else but they are incapable of connecting the dots as to where the power and fuel that sustains their lifestyle comes from. They would rather import oil and gas from the Middle East, destroying their lands and risking the oceans transporting it than see anything in their own backyard.


Maybe I am out to lunch on this, but I was under the impression that the oil we are talking about here isn't about fueling vehicles, but more for raw materials for all the stuff that gets shipped back to us.

Don't all of our iPods, cell phones, computers, TVs and millions of other products require oil to make the plastic that is used in production?
  • 0
Posted Image

#53 DonLever

DonLever

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,542 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 08

Posted 19 December 2013 - 05:06 PM

If we keep doubling down on oil to grow our economy, what motivation will Canada have to pursue alternatives? Oil might be a necessary evil right now but greener technologies will begin phasing it out. If we don't pursue these alternatives and be leaders in green energy, we are going to be way behind the 8-ball down the road.

Doubling down on oil is a very short sighted move to line the pockets of certain corporations and individuals as quickly as possible. All while they keep telling us "it's good for the economy".


What greener alternatives? There is none that is enough that will meet the needs of a growing world population. Wind and solar power won't do it. Hydro Electricity may enough but environmentists oppose that as well. Look at the Cite C demand and the opposition to it.

Going to the pockets of corporations? How about the other view? Like Billions of dollars of Royalties to fund health care and and social programs.
  • 0

#54 Warhippy

Warhippy

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,478 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 13

Posted 19 December 2013 - 05:09 PM

What greener alternatives? There is none that is enough that will meet the needs of a growing world population. Wind and solar power won't do it. Hydro Electricity may enough but environmentists oppose that as well. Look at the Cite C demand and the opposition to it.

Going to the pockets of corporations? How about the other view? Like Billions of dollars of Royalties to fund health care and and social programs.

You mean the health care and social programs the federal government just offloaded onto the provinces there by absolving them of any fault if it all goes bad?
  • 0
CIaude Giroux Posted 27 June 2014 - 04:15 PM


He's out for 6 months (which will hinder his development) and he really needs that development. There's already worries that he won't translate to the NHL and he'll end up a huge ass bust.

 

 


#55 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,240 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 19 December 2013 - 05:09 PM

Like I said, this is not 'approved'.

http://www.vancouver...7493/story.html

So the breathlessly awaited verdict on the Northern Gateway pipeline project is in, at long last. Net effect? Far less than it may seem. Despite the National Energy Board joint review panel’s green-lighting the controversial project, with a whopping 209 conditions, Northern Gateway is running out of time and probably doomed. Within six months the federal cabinet will render its own verdict. By then the interminable lawsuits and protests will be in full swing. And industry attention will have further turned toward projects with more attractive cost-benefit profiles. This may not be a terrible outcome. In any case, it now appears locked in.


Northern Gateway has been a political minefield from the start, because of geography. Its proposed route snakes 1,177 kilometres westward from Edmonton, Alta., to Kitimat, B.C., passing through traditional aboriginal territories. From Kitimat, Asia-bound bitumen is to be shipped down the Douglas channel by tanker, to the ocean. The proposed volume is 525,000 barrels a day. That’s a lot of tankers – 220 per year – with a lot of moving pieces, conferring a risk profile different from that of any other North American pipeline plan currently on the books, that I know of. In the post Exxon Valdez era, selling this was never going to be easy. In the post-Lac-Megantic era it looks nigh impossible.


The economic case in favour of a new pipeline to the Pacific has always been compelling. For starters, demand from Asian nations is soaring. Between now and 2035, the International Energy Agency predicts, emerging economies will account for 90 per cent of net energy demand growth, with China, India and Southeast Asia leading the way. Meantime, U.S. requirements for energy

imports are on the wane. As early as 2020, due to new extraction technologies such as fracking, the United States may be energy-self-sufficient.


Moreover, market need for new pipeline capacity is immediate and pressing. Alberta crude already trades at a steep discount to the global price, simply because its product is bottlenecked to the west, east and south. Crude is moving, but not in sufficient quantities to ease a growing glut east of the Rockies. That discount – up to $25 off the price of a $100 barrel of oil – doesn’t just hit Big Oil’s bottom line; it hits the federal treasury. Over the next roughly two decades, the Conference Board has estimated, total tax proceeds from the oilsands and related industries will total $80 billion. Of that, more than half is federal.


As well, Northern Gateway opponents have undermined their own argument by citing climate change as a reason to nix the project. For, as with Keystone, the ultimate net effect on carbon emissions, whether crude moves one way or another, through this pipeline or that, or by ship or rail, is nil. If we assume the 173 billion barrels of crude in the oilsands will be extracted, one way or another – which is a safe assumption, given the projected skyrocketing of global demand for all forms of energy over the next 25 years – the carbon footprint doesn’t change. That’s because the primary energy cost is in the extraction. A heavy investment in new nuclear power plants in Northern Alberta could dramatically cut the oil patch’s carbon footprint; killing the Northern Gateway pipeline won’t.


And, as a final argument in its favour, Northern Gateway has proposed environmental safeguards that would make it a standout in pipeline and tanker safety. These include land-based radar, new beacons, buoys and the like; provisions requiring that every tanker be escorted by two tugs, one tethered, to lessen the risk of a tanker running aground; requirements that each tanker be double-hulled, and less than 20 years old, and a two-pilot rule, to mitigate the risk of human error.


But set against all that is this single, powerful, incontrovertible fact: There is no way to reduce the risk of a tanker spill in the Douglas Channel to zero. Human error or equipment malfunction can always be a factor, as they have been in so many recent industrial tragedies. Such a spill would be beyond catastrophic; the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989, which spilled 210,000 cubic metres of oil into Prince William Sound, established this.


Together with strong aboriginal opposition (exacerbated, it must be said, by the federal government’s refusal to entertain a separate First Nations consultation), this guarantees that, whatever the NEB says, and whatever the cabinet eventually says, there will be intense, prolonged opposition on the ground, and in the courts. That is a project-killer. It is not the case with Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, which has the virtue of being an expansion to something already built. Nor is it the case with Keystone XL, which has passed its local hurdles and now merely awaits approval from the Obama administration.


All of which leaves one with the sense that this NEB judgment, and the hue and cry to follow, are flash and fire, after the battle. This green light looks more like amber, on an indefinite clock.



  • 1

#56 bolt

bolt

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 523 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 09

Posted 19 December 2013 - 05:11 PM

Time to buy Enbridge shares
  • 0



#57 DonLever

DonLever

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,542 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 08

Posted 19 December 2013 - 05:24 PM

You mean the health care and social programs the federal government just offloaded onto the provinces there by absolving them of any fault if it all goes bad?


The provinces have jurisdiction over health care and social programs. The feds have cut transfer payments to the provinces. That first started under the Liberals under Chretien.
  • 0

#58 Warhippy

Warhippy

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,478 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 13

Posted 19 December 2013 - 05:34 PM

The provinces have jurisdiction over health care and social programs. The feds have cut transfer payments to the provinces. That first started under the Liberals under Chretien.

But has been accelerated and now completely loaded onto the backs fo the provinces. It's kinda scary. now with the CPP lies it looks even worse
  • 0
CIaude Giroux Posted 27 June 2014 - 04:15 PM


He's out for 6 months (which will hinder his development) and he really needs that development. There's already worries that he won't translate to the NHL and he'll end up a huge ass bust.

 

 


#59 ilduce39

ilduce39

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,675 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 08

Posted 19 December 2013 - 05:37 PM

If we keep doubling down on oil to grow our economy, what motivation will Canada have to pursue alternatives? Oil might be a necessary evil right now but greener technologies will begin phasing it out. If we don't pursue these alternatives and be leaders in green energy, we are going to be way behind the 8-ball down the road.

Doubling down on oil is a very short sighted move to line the pockets of certain corporations and individuals as quickly as possible. All while they keep telling us "it's good for the economy".


Agreed 100%... people see making a quick buck as "progress" but I can't help but see it as a regressive and archaic form of energy. We all know if fossil fuels dried up we would have viable alternatives and infrastructure up and running in months (and subsequent jobs created and profits to be made) but since necessity is the mother of invention - the unnecessary is relegated to being a fad.
  • 1
T-Bone said:
remind them all of Tbone, remeber me for how I lived, not how I was banned
*sig too big

#60 DonLever

DonLever

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,542 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 08

Posted 19 December 2013 - 05:38 PM

But has been accelerated and now completely loaded onto the backs fo the provinces. It's kinda scary. now with the CPP lies it looks even worse


Yes, what you say is correct. That is how the Feds are balancing the budget; by cutting transfer payments to the provinces.
  • 0





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.