Kinder Morgan Pipeline Talk

[-DLC-]

18 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Would be great to have it confirmed all these people walked to the misguided protest.

Would be great to have it confirmed that none of those in favour of this project are breathing in air or drinking water.  What is more important in the end?  

 

Honestly, we have a lot at stake here in BC and it's great that $$ is the only issue for those who don't have their province and waterways at risk.  Alberta's tar sands are a filthy disgrace to this planet ... we want BC's coast to stay pristine.  All the money in the world can't bring it back once it's destroyed.

 

All we had here where I grew up in my little corner here was farming and fishing, things that help sustain life.  I don't feel bad that we don't want cruddy bitumen flowing through our province.  Last I checked, we weren't filling up with it at the pumps.

 

 

[Shift-4]

2 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Would be great to have it confirmed that none of those in favour of this project are breathing in air or drinking water.  What is more important in the end?  

 

Honestly, we have a lot at stake here in BC and it's great that $$ is the only issue for those who don't have their province and waterways at risk.  Alberta's a filthy disgrace to this planet ... we want BC's coast to stay pristine.  All the money in the world can't bring it back once it's destroyed.

 

 

Nice blanket statement, Deb

Pure class   

[-DLC-]

4 minutes ago, Shift-4 said:

Nice blanket statement, Deb

Pure class   

Sorry, should have been clearer that it is in reference to the tar sands, which I was looking for a picture to post.  You're right.  Fixed it.

[-DLC-]

Here's the thing.  Will we shut down without this?   Close down the country, we can no longer operate?   I don't think that's the case.  It means more $$, but money isn't everything.  And, when there are legitimate concerns, it's important to weigh things out carefully before the fact.  After would be too late. 

 

In my world, money isn't everything.  It's a way to pay the bills and, beyond that, I don't care about being rich (or not).  Some people focus on getting richer as a priority and that drives them.  Success is measured in "have" and "have not".  I respect that...we're all different.

 

But don't undermine someone's reasons because they don't share the same ideas.  Yes I drive a car...so what??  Guess what we also need?  We need clean air and water. 

 

I happen to need this coast to keep my sanity intact...it's very much tied in to my inner peace and happiness.  Everything that keeps me happy is outdoors here.

 

My family lived off this land ... it has sustained us.  Fishing, farming and hunting.    Others survive because oil and other industry keeps them going. 

 

My world is very much dependent on the nature around me and that's at risk here if there is a disaster at sea.  Increasing tanker traffic seven times in narrow inlets and channels?  That's a risk. 

 

Other people have their own reasons for/against but you can't convince me that all the money in the world matters more than the special surroundings we have here.  That it will all be ok if it goes wrong.  It won't be for me....I live here.   

 

Once that crud is loaded on to the tankers it's no longer KM's risk...it's those running the ships who will answer (or not) for an incident.  We don't have time to wait while it gets sorted out.

I don't have enough faith in those making $$ from this deal to protect my interests, nor do I expect that they will.   

 

We all have our arguments and it's ok to be on either side.  But I'm not convinced, for a second, that people in Alberta and East of that give a rat's behind about the BC coastline...other than using it as a passing through point.  

[Shift-4]

39 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Sorry, should have been clearer that it is in reference to the tar sands, which I was looking for a picture to post.  You're right.  Fixed it.

Now that's classy 

[Dral]

1 hour ago, debluvscanucks said:

Sorry, should have been clearer that it is in reference to the tar sands, which I was looking for a picture to post.  You're right.  Fixed it.

 

LoL - you can edit your post without the edit thing? Nice...

 

It looks like Shift-4 actually edited your post in the quotes to make it look like you said something bad... when you originally never did

[Violator]

Cant figure put how to add a pic

Edited March 13, 2018 by Violator

[JM_]

1 hour ago, debluvscanucks said:

Here's the thing.  Will we shut down without this?   

No. We're doing just fine without it. Alberta will have increased revenues with the TransCanada expansion to the US anyway, and we should wait imo to at least learn how to clean up diluted bitumen before we start shipping it. 

 

Its huge dollars mostly for Alberta and then the feds, and China gets a new oil source. BC benefits very little in comparison. I think we're going into this using the BC coast as an experiment and frankly I don't think many Albertans care about that when its stacked against their provincial income. 

[Rob_Zepp]

4 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

Would be great to have it confirmed that none of those in favour of this project are breathing in air or drinking water.  What is more important in the end?  

 

Honestly, we have a lot at stake here in BC and it's great that $$ is the only issue for those who don't have their province and waterways at risk.  Alberta's tar sands are a filthy disgrace to this planet ... we want BC's coast to stay pristine.  All the money in the world can't bring it back once it's destroyed.

 

All we had here where I grew up in my little corner here was farming and fishing, things that help sustain life.  I don't feel bad that we don't want cruddy bitumen flowing through our province.  Last I checked, we weren't filling up with it at the pumps.

 

 

Your oil has to come from somewhere.   You can have it come heavily regulated Canada or from some random locations around the world by sea and rail where environmental protection is often very optional.    I am all about reduction in carbon footprints but for at least the next two to four generations oil is a reality - what Canadians can control is where is comes from.   Buying it from Middle East or US or Russia - just don’t see how that isn’t hypocritical.   

[kingofsurrey]

On 3/12/2018 at 8:37 PM, Rob_Zepp said:

Would be great to have it confirmed all these people walked to the misguided protest.

Why ? Who cares how that got to the protest ?

 

Citizens in Canada have a right to stand up and protest against threats to our BC coastline  / environment. 

 

How they get to the protest is not  a concern, just be happy for you and your kids sake that that they are standing up for all BCers.

[Rob_Zepp]

11 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

Why ? Who cares how that got to the protest ?

 

Citizens in Canada have a right to stand up and protest against threats to our BC coastline  / environment. 

 

How they get to the protest is not  a concern, just be happy for you and your kids sake that that they are standing up for all BCers.

You don't see how hypocritical it is to bring oil from Mexico, Middle East or Russia by tanker for people in BC to use or by rail from US (uber safe that rail/oil thing...another topic) but oil from Canada itself, oil that you HAVE been using for nearly 5 decades, along a pipeline route that has been safety transporting oil for more than 60 years is a somehow worthy of a protest.....let alone those who protested probably drove their using oil.

 

You don't see the hypocrisy in how they got there then this is one topic I will need to ignore you on.    They are not standing up for all BCers, they are protesting being a country and working to balance all needs PLUS ignoring their own demands for a product that comes to them in the very form they are now protesting.    

[-DLC-]

14 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Your oil has to come from somewhere.   You can have it come heavily regulated Canada or from some random locations around the world by sea and rail where environmental protection is often very optional.    I am all about reduction in carbon footprints but for at least the next two to four generations oil is a reality - what Canadians can control is where is comes from.   Buying it from Middle East or US or Russia - just don’t see how that isn’t hypocritical.   

This isn't "our oil"...it's Alberta's and it's just passing through here to go elsewhere.  Yet we will assume all the risk at this end as tanker traffic will increase.  

[Rob_Zepp]

Just now, debluvscanucks said:

This isn't "our oil"...it's Alberta's and it's just passing through here to go elsewhere.  Yet we will assume all the risk at this end as tanker traffic will increase.  

I thought people in BC were part of Canada?

 

Go ahead you BCers, work out an agreement then on the risks whatever else - but just stop saying "no".   You have tanker traffic now - it just is that most of it comes in to you for your oil.   

 

The more I read those opposed, it is all about money and risk to BC.   THEN WORK OUT A DEAL with Alberta.    This current situation is great for every other country that sends you your oil except the very one you life in.

 

This "Province vs Province" crap is the same divisive mentality going on south of the border.   Why not start acting like one country?    Get the risk/reward ratio right - protest THAT but stop the hypocrisy BC.

[-DLC-]

You need to ask all this of your Premier, Notley, who is creating this divide...this is not on BC (for simply standing up for what's right for our province...seems she wants us just to clamber on board with what is best for Alberta).  

 

Cutting off this and that...she is setting the tone of not working together as one and creating the divide.  She's acting like a spoiled child who isn't getting her own way so she's stomping off with her toys and slamming the door shut.

BC'ers are just reacting to being treated like the doormat of the country.  We have a lot more than money at stake here, but no one cares about that because it IS all about the money. 

"Beautiful BC's" tourism, fishing, farming and other things will suffer if there is a "mishap".  Do you really feel those running the tankers will readily step up to the plate with any sense of urgency?   KM and the those transporting this crud will find ways to point fingers at one another while the coast that WE rely on is impacted.  You have to consider the worst case scenarios, and we'd bear the brunt of that.  While everyone else is cashing in around us.  Alberta stands to gain a lot more but lose nothing here in the event of a disaster.

 

The risk isn't focused on money to me or others that I know.  It's about how we're leaving things for our kids and grandkids and thinking beyond what brings in the cash now to what we'll be left with later.  

 

Every single thing that keeps me sane (besides my family) is on the riverbank.  And it would crush me to see it covered in crud and the habitat and wildlife devastated.  

 

The risk/reward varies GREATLY between provinces, so you can't deny or ignore that.  As Notley seems to want to....

 

 

[PhillipBlunt]

This oil should be refined before it leaves BC, as Jimmy McGill stated earlier. This country needs to stop being the resource doormat to the world and ensure that it is sending out exports that have supported the local economy first.

 

An oil spill of dilbit is far harder to clean up than conventional crude oil, due to the fact that destabilized distilled bitumen only floats briefly in saltwater before sinking, making the cleanup much harder to manage and the risks to the coast, and all the animals living on it, far greater. As long as dilbit is what is being proposed to be transported, it should be a resounding no from BC. Safety first.

Edited March 14, 2018 by PhillipBlunt

[-DLC-]

Here's a snippet of why it's become a province versus province deal:

 

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley has threatened 

Notley has already vowed to take legal action 

On Wednesday, Notley called an emergency cabinet meeting to discuss Alberta's options to strike backwith

 

So we need to say "yes" because she is threatening us?  She isn't really discussing this, she's acting like a Soprano.  She's not playing nice so not sure why we have to just roll over and say yes?  Just doesn't work that way.  There are valid concerns with this project for people on the BC coast.

 

For the record, a poll in Quebec showed over 60% support FOR BC's no stance.  So the entire country isn't necessarily on board with this.  There is more to consider than $$ and when we're experiencing climate change there is a responsibility to address that aspect of things.  You have to predict that the worst can happen and then assess with that in mind (too).  We can't afford to ruin this coast and the precious resources we rely on in BC.  

 

And we're talking SEVEN TIMES MORE tanker traffic.  Not double or triple...SEVEN.  Through this passage way.  So excuse us if we don't just consider the pipeline to the tanker, but beyond.



 

[Toews]

20 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

Here's the thing.  Will we shut down without this?   Close down the country, we can no longer operate?   I don't think that's the case.  It means more $$, but money isn't everything.  And, when there are legitimate concerns, it's important to weigh things out carefully before the fact.  After would be too late. 

 

In my world, money isn't everything.  It's a way to pay the bills and, beyond that, I don't care about being rich (or not).  Some people focus on getting richer as a priority and that drives them.  Success is measured in "have" and "have not".  I respect that...we're all different.

 

But don't undermine someone's reasons because they don't share the same ideas.  Yes I drive a car...so what??  Guess what we also need?  We need clean air and water. 

 

I happen to need this coast to keep my sanity intact...it's very much tied in to my inner peace and happiness.  Everything that keeps me happy is outdoors here.

 

My family lived off this land ... it has sustained us.  Fishing, farming and hunting.    Others survive because oil and other industry keeps them going. 

 

My world is very much dependent on the nature around me and that's at risk here if there is a disaster at sea.  Increasing tanker traffic seven times in narrow inlets and channels?  That's a risk. 

 

Other people have their own reasons for/against but you can't convince me that all the money in the world matters more than the special surroundings we have here.  That it will all be ok if it goes wrong.  It won't be for me....I live here.   

 

Once that crud is loaded on to the tankers it's no longer KM's risk...it's those running the ships who will answer (or not) for an incident.  We don't have time to wait while it gets sorted out.

I don't have enough faith in those making $$ from this deal to protect my interests, nor do I expect that they will.   

 

We all have our arguments and it's ok to be on either side.  But I'm not convinced, for a second, that people in Alberta and East of that give a rat's behind about the BC coastline...other than using it as a passing through point.  

I was reminded of the posts you made on Garry Point when having a discussion with a poster. That was the context behind a post I made that what we have right now is the result of the efforts taken by those who came before us. Now that burden is on us to protect it for our children and subsequently our children will inherit that burden when we are gone. The generations of future Canadians (not just BCers) deserve to see this province as it always should be. 

 

This Canadian thanks you and especially your father for helping defending this country from opportunism and greed.

Edited March 14, 2018 by Toews

[kingofsurrey]

5 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

  They are not standing up for all BCers, they are protesting being a country and working to balance all needs PLUS ignoring their own demands for a product that comes to them in the very form they are now protesting.    

They are standing up for all Earthlings  that want a healthy planet

The protestors are standing up for all species on our PLANET

 

KInder Morgan Pipeline Supporters  are   encouraging the destruction of our planet.  THEY  are part of the problem. 

 

Canada needs to become a world LEADER in GREEN ENERGY.    Now before it is too LATE. 

[kingofsurrey]

5 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

 

 

This "Province vs Province" crap is the same divisive mentality going on south of the border.   Why not start acting like one country?    Get the risk/reward ratio right - protest THAT but stop the hypocrisy BC.

What  is crap is... putting the BC coast at risk all for $$$$  for Alberta..... and encouraging Global Warming in the process...... by the consumption of a very dirty oil.

 

It is time now for Canada to cancel the Pipeline expansion and commit to developing GREEN ENERGY> 

Canada can become WORLD GREEN ENERGY LEADERS>>>>>>>

[Rob_Zepp]

5 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

You need to ask all this of your Premier, Notley, who is creating this divide...this is not on BC (for simply standing up for what's right for our province...seems she wants us just to clamber on board with what is best for Alberta).  

 

Cutting off this and that...she is setting the tone of not working together as one and creating the divide.  She's acting like a spoiled child who isn't getting her own way so she's stomping off with her toys and slamming the door shut.

BC'ers are just reacting to being treated like the doormat of the country.  We have a lot more than money at stake here, but no one cares about that because it IS all about the money. 

"Beautiful BC's" tourism, fishing, farming and other things will suffer if there is a "mishap".  Do you really feel those running the tankers will readily step up to the plate with any sense of urgency?   KM and the those transporting this crud will find ways to point fingers at one another while the coast that WE rely on is impacted.  You have to consider the worst case scenarios, and we'd bear the brunt of that.  While everyone else is cashing in around us.  Alberta stands to gain a lot more but lose nothing here in the event of a disaster.

 

The risk isn't focused on money to me or others that I know.  It's about how we're leaving things for our kids and grandkids and thinking beyond what brings in the cash now to what we'll be left with later.  

 

Every single thing that keeps me sane (besides my family) is on the riverbank.  And it would crush me to see it covered in crud and the habitat and wildlife devastated.  

 

The risk/reward varies GREATLY between provinces, so you can't deny or ignore that.  As Notley seems to want to....

 

 

She sure as sugar is not "my Premier".   I don't live in Alberta and if I did you can guarantee I would not have voted for her.    

 

IF you want to leave things to your kids/grandkids, leave a strong economy that can take care of medical issues, environmental issues and allow them to build a life.   Right now all their oil, for example, is not coming domestically and not having that revenue from international trade will erode their future.   Oil isn't going away - not using Alberta's is just so short-sighted.   

 

I don't disagree with anything you say about Alberta Premier.   BC Premier and her are supposed to be left-wingnut bedfellows.    

 

Put the controls in place or if you want to go back to the Neolithic existence then have you and your family stop using oil - period.  Stop wearing synthetics, using carbon fibre....etc. etc. etc.   Oil is such a massive part of everything you do today and that oil you ship overseas is used for stuff you then buy.   Your consumptive patterns are the reason it is needed.   I get that two Provinces are playing like children but to use something and not care where it comes from as long as it is not Alberta is pretty naive isn't it?   Moreover, it is impacting the very future of the family you talk about.