GLASSJAW Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 You're not the brightest crayon, are you? As demonstrated by the fact you're bitching about generalization of first nations while generalizing whites in return. Everything else in your post is irrelevant to that. i don't really agree with how you frame the stuff you say (too condescending), but this, for me, is the weirdest part of this whole conversation. Warhippy is offended by what he considers to be a racist comment, then talks about white people in a rude, generalized way don't make no sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted December 22, 2013 Author Share Posted December 22, 2013 i don't really agree with how you frame the stuff you say (too condescending), but this, for me, is the weirdest part of this whole conversation. Warhippy is offended by what he considers to be a racist comment, then talks about white people in a rude, generalized way don't make no sense I am an emotional abrasive and rude individual when offended...hell even when not offended. I can be the first to admit that. So be it, I was offended now someone else is offended and the circle goes on right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted December 22, 2013 Author Share Posted December 22, 2013 I do understand. It's an inability to contain your racism once you get a little emotional. No different than any other racist, be they white, yellow, black, or red. Now go on, understand why someone said something like that about first nations earlier in the thread. Go on, you champion of understanding, you. So, I am a racist then? Because I shone a mirror on the situation? Oh dear. Better start insulting me again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackberries Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 There has been an underscore in this thread back and forth about racism..which framed in the actual context of the subject is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted December 22, 2013 Author Share Posted December 22, 2013 There has been an underscore in this thread back and forth about racism..which framed in the actual context of the subject is irrelevant. BAck to the topic at hand. Did you know that Enbridge and the NEB purposely left out the 7 major hairpin turns around small islets in the Douglas channel? 2 of which are so small that nobody has ever run something as large as a fully laden oil tanker through them? Insane isn't it. I don't think anyone is shocked the NEB said yes to this as they've never said no to a proposed pipeline. But the 180 day decision period for the Harper government is almost insulting. They're going to rubber stamp this the second the holiday period is over and try to butter up the Clark government to saying yes to it all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackberries Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 BAck to the topic at hand. Did you know that Enbridge and the NEB purposely left out the 7 major hairpin turns around small islets in the Douglas channel? 2 of which are so small that nobody has ever run something as large as a fully laden oil tanker through them? Insane isn't it. I don't think anyone is shocked the NEB said yes to this as they've never said no to a proposed pipeline. But the 180 day decision period for the Harper government is almost insulting. They're going to rubber stamp this the second the holiday period is over and try to butter up the Clark government to saying yes to it all Actually I do vaguely recall a controversy that I believe was related, when Enbridge published the plans and took out ads in the newspaper, their drawings of the inlet were completely inaccurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackberries Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 also there's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delgamuukw_v._British_Columbia so there is actual legal precedent for the first nations groups who's land this will encroach upon to take this directly to the supreme court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 So, I am a racist then? Because I shone a mirror on the situation? Oh dear. Better start insulting me again So if I start making racist comments about First Nations I'll be shining a mirror? You're not worth the time to insult you, something I should have recognized right away. Actually I do vaguely recall a controversy that I believe was related, when Enbridge published the plans and took out ads in the newspaper, their drawings of the inlet were completely inaccurate. This? Wasn't that long ago. http://bc.ctvnews.ca/enbridge-depiction-of-clear-tanker-route-sparks-outrage-1.916234 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackberries Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 This? Wasn't that long ago. http://bc.ctvnews.ca...utrage-1.916234 Yes thats right, seems like pretty big details to miss, and doesn't do much to ease fears of a lack of planing and safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtis Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 Stop sending our damn resources to Asia!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Standing_Tall#37 Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 If they can run the full capacity on a 3ft pipe 24/7-365 for 30 years that =s $5.7 Trillion in the 30 years, if a barrel remains the same price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Your Huckleberry Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 I think both sides of the debate in this thread have done a great job exemplifying why we as people can never come to an agreement on what is best. This shouldn't be a liberal/hippy/first nations/etc vs rich conservative white people/etc war. Every perspective is a valid perspective. They are all partial truths, and all perspectives (this is not limited to only Human perspectives) sum to equal the Truth. We should be striving for collaboration to integrate as many perspectives or partial truths as possible into decision making. It's difficult to not get defensive about your beliefs but if people don't work together everybody loses. Ya this is a message board where you are allowed to state and debate your perspective or partial truth, but the only way discussion is worthwhile if what I have written above is kept in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackberries Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 I think both sides of the debate in this thread have done a great job exemplifying why we as people can never come to an agreement on what is best. This shouldn't be a liberal/hippy/first nations/etc vs rich conservative white people/etc war. Every perspective is a valid perspective. They are all partial truths, and all perspectives (this is not limited to only Human perspectives) sum to equal the Truth. We should be striving for collaboration to integrate as many perspectives or partial truths as possible into decision making. It's difficult to not get defensive about your beliefs but if people don't work together everybody loses. Ya this is a message board where you are allowed to state and debate your perspective or partial truth, but the only way discussion is worthwhile if what I have written above is kept in mind. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 If they can run the full capacity on a 3ft pipe 24/7-365 for 30 years that =s $5.7 Trillion in the 30 years, if a barrel remains the same price. Exactly. Why would the government turn down the opportunity of making that kind of money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GPCanucksFan Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 I'm torn on this issue. I'd love to see this pipeline go through if it can boost our economy and create jobs for people in BC, but I don't want our beautiful province to be tainted with a bad spill. I have a great career now, and it's all thanks to the oil industry, and would love to see more people that are struggling to make ends meet in BC to be in the position I am in. I know you can't make everyone happy, but I hope this will get resolved and a good majority will be happy with whatever decision is made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 "We shall fully exercise our rights and inherent jurisdiction rooted in our Indigenous Laws and Indigenous land rights to defend our lands, waters and the safety and well- being of our Peoples," stated Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. "Today's recommended approval with conditions stems from a fundamentally and fatally flawed process where as a matter of record, the overwhelming majority of presentations made to the Panel here in B.C. expressed grave concerns, distressing facts and a shared belief the project should not proceed. The Northern Gateway Project is being vehemently opposed by Indigenous Peoples who will not put their territories, waters and communities at risk. This is about the environmental integrity of the watersheds we all share and we are willing to go to any lengths to defend our watersheds. We are prepared to go to the wall against this project. We have no choice." And I stand 100% behind them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester13 Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 also there's this: http://en.wikipedia....ritish_Columbia so there is actual legal precedent for the first nations groups who's land this will encroach upon to take this directly to the supreme court. Quite the coincidence because I just received my reading list in the mail for next semester and I started reading one of them for one of my Canadian/Aboriginal poli sci classes, and it deals with this case and historical ones before it ie. St. Catherines Milling, Calder. It will be interesting to see how the provincial and federal government deal with this moving forward. Definitely what I will be keeping an eye out for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sypher009 Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 hasn't the Trans Mountain pipeline been carrying heavy oil in an old pipeline from AB to Vancouver for over 50 years with no issues? pretty sure the new pipeline will be alot more state of the art and have alot more safeguards than that one and also probably most pipelines in north america Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Standing_Tall#37 Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 Exactly. Why would the government turn down the opportunity of making that kind of money? That's what the oil company is making...5.7 trillion. The Fed gets 40 Bill., Alberta has the product and gets 32 Billion. We Run all the Risk for 1.2 billion? WTF??? Is Christy Clark Retarded? BC should have got at least 10-15 billion. Ah Well when a tanker runs aground on the inside passage( and it will happen, once the cameras go away and they start running the bigger ones) I hope that the $40million/year that they sold this province out for is enough to clean up+repair the damage. I wish they would run a 3ft pipeline to Vancouver.... Somewhere where it would always be in the public eye and forced to follow regs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedestroyerofworlds Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 hasn't the Trans Mountain pipeline been carrying heavy oil in an old pipeline from AB to Vancouver for over 50 years with no issues? pretty sure the new pipeline will be alot more state of the art and have alot more safeguards than that one and also probably most pipelines in north america There was the Pembina oil spill in 2000 http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/eemp/incidents/earlier/pembina_00.htm Pine River Oil Spill Location Incident occurred on the Pine River, about 110 km upstream of the community of Chetwynd. The Pine River flows into the Peace River. Time and Date of Incident August 1, 2000 - 01:20 hours Product/Quantity Spilled 1 Light crude oil — approximately 985 cubic metres (6200 barrels) Cause of Spill A pipeline transporting oil from Taylor to Kamloops ruptured. Environmental Setting and Impacts The environmental impact included mortality to fish, insects and some wildlife. The river water supply to the District of Chetwynd was shut off and the use of many groundwater wells near the river was discontinued. Response Participants Responsible Party 2Pembina Pipeline Corporation Lead Agencies 3Provincial: Ministry of Environment, Oil and Gas CommissionFirst Nations: Saulteau First Nations Primary Participating Contractors and other AgenciesAlpine Environmental Ltd.Provincial Emergency Program (PEP)District of ChetwyndEnvironment Canada Response Summary/Closure The spill response was managed by Pembina Pipeline Corporation. This spill was one of the most expensive inland pipeline oil spill in Canadian history. The company has spent over $30,000,000 and the local government and provincial agencies were also heavily impacted. The product recovery rate was high: 450 m3 removed from the river, 415 m3 removed in contaminated soil and about 80 m3 spread throughout the environment. I was there. What a mess. Oil spilling into rivers is virtually impossible to contain. It's hope that the oil will dissolve, evaporate, or settle on the river banks quickly to minimize the damage and make clean-up quicker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.