Ryan Strome Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 5 minutes ago, riffraff said: It’s our risk. i don’t expect people who haven’t grown up on a coast to understand. I don’t consider myself a minority. You opposing the expansion puts you in the minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DADDYROCK Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 Money isn't everything, if you can't continue to live of this planet. Wake up you stupid politicians and change to solar or geothermal power,before it is too late for our CHILDREN. Get big money out of all the political ads,for them to continue to destroy us all for a damn dollar. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: You opposing the expansion puts you in the minority. Depends on sample size, and how the poll is worded. Which is true of any poll ever done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DADDYROCK Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 Do you actually still believe in these corrupt polls ,WAKE UP LITTLE ROSEBUD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckylager Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 6 minutes ago, Violator said: One to many luckys tonight? Haven't even started, still at work. You understand what sharing risk is and why it's important, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 1 minute ago, DADDYROCK said: Do you actually still believe in these corrupt polls ,WAKE UP LITTLE ROSEBUD. This coming from the communist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violator Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 12 minutes ago, luckylager said: Haven't even started, still at work. You understand what sharing risk is and why it's important, right? We all share risk equally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chon derry Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 jan 16 2019 poll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliboy Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 4 minutes ago, Violator said: We all share risk equally As in it's a Federal project, which would be the responsibility of the Federal Government, which means all of Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DADDYROCK Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 Don't know about you Ryan but I was born here,thank you very much and I am just concerned for mankinds well being,OK! Communist,HA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted January 19, 2019 Author Share Posted January 19, 2019 8 minutes ago, chon derry said: jan 16 2019 poll I always thought those Quebecers were a smart group...... now i see it in the stats.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 14 minutes ago, aliboy said: As in it's a Federal project, which would be the responsibility of the Federal Government, which means all of Canada. Ottawa has no beach. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckylager Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 24 minutes ago, Violator said: We all share risk equally 22 minutes ago, aliboy said: As in it's a Federal project, which would be the responsibility of the Federal Government, which means all of Canada. Which isn't actually true. Currently BC is on hook for any and all cleanup costs in the event of a spill or leak. That sounds fair, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chon derry Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 3 minutes ago, luckylager said: Which isn't actually true. Currently BC is on hook for any and all cleanup costs in the event of a spill or leak. That sounds fair, right? the original NEB'S approval was even more ridiculous ,of the 2 major reasons the courts shut it down , consultation being 1st , BUT adherence to the impact of tanker traffic increase ,and a sub category which stated KM'S RESPONSABILITY OR OIL SELLER'S RESPONSABILITY ended at KM'S facility with NO clear answer of cleanup cost or who would actually do the clean up , GREAT PLAN, alluding back to my previous post about tanker route and facility location ,bad , REALLY BAD LOCATION! , which only compounds the lack of a 'real' plan for clean up . get it the hell out of vancouver harbour,georgia straits period! END OF! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 7 minutes ago, chon derry said: the original NEB'S approval was even more ridiculous ,of the 2 major reasons the courts shut it down , consultation being 1st , BUT adherence to the impact of tanker traffic increase ,and a sub category which stated KM'S RESPONSABILITY OR OIL SELLER'S RESPONSABILITY ended at KM'S facility with NO clear answer of cleanup cost or who would actually do the clean up , GREAT PLAN, alluding back to my previous post about tanker route and facility location ,bad , REALLY BAD LOCATION! , which only compounds the lack of a 'real' plan for clean up . get it the hell out of vancouver harbour,georgia straits period! END OF! 1. Its the best damn location there is. I'd much rather we contain any potential spill in the burrard inlet- an area of already high traffic with messy water from micro-leakages all the time, than break ground in pristine territory. 2. I don't see why KM has to shoulder responsibility for spill if its a tanker spill. KM doesn't own the tanker, the tanker company does. They should be on the hook for it. In what world do i, a commodity shipper, become responsible for the commodity after it's exited my logistics chain ?!? 3. Risk from tanker traffic is a BS red-herring alarmism, completely lacking any scientific basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chon derry Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 Just now, canuckistani said: 1. Its the best damn location there is. I'd much rather we contain any potential spill in the burrard inlet- an area of already high traffic with messy water from micro-leakages all the time, than break ground in pristine territory. 2. I don't see why KM has to shoulder responsibility for spill if its a tanker spill. KM doesn't own the tanker, the tanker company does. They should be on the hook for it. In what world do i, a commodity shipper, become responsible for the commodity after it's exited my logistics chain ?!? 3. Risk from tanker traffic is a BS red-herring alarmism, completely lacking any scientific basis. the point being ,that in the original NEB approval ,it simply ended at the terminal and never AT ALL did it state who was RESPONCABLE WHICH CLEARLY LEAVES A BIG QUESTION MARK!, AND NO WHERE IN MY POSTS DID SAY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN km! it was left open ended HENCE THE COURTS DEEMED IT not good enough! 3. "RISK FROM TANKER TRAFFIC" WAS INCLUDED IN THE COURTS RULING. or I guess I should say the lack of scientific research on behalf of the NEB'S original approval was part of its ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, chon derry said: the point being ,that in the original NEB approval ,it simply ended at the terminal and never AT ALL did it state who was RESPONCABLE WHICH CLEARLY LEAVES A BIG QUESTION MARK!, AND NO WHERE IN MY POSTS DID SAY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN km! it was left open ended HENCE THE COURTS DEEMED IT not good enough! 3. "RISK FROM TANKER TRAFFIC" WAS INCLUDED IN THE COURTS RULING. or I guess I should say the lack of scientific research on behalf of the NEB'S original approval was part of its ruling. More like anti-science propaganda from Vancouver-nimby's who are being fed US money to keep it clean and touristy for Americans and drive up the real estate value. The risk of tanker spill is negligible. About as valid as shutting down YVR because of the infinitesimally small risk of a plane crash in Burns Bog. The risk for any tanker going kaput in the modern 21st century is very very slim. St. of Georgia isn't even as narrow or as shallow as St. of Hormuz - which sees 30x the tanker traffic St. of Georgia ever will see. bad weather in the pacific NW you say ? Sure. But its nowhere as bad or as rough as the Sea of Okhotsk, where Russia ships oil from Sakhalin- 1 & 2 for the last 20 years. Gulf islands ? Well the same Russian tankers cross the Kuril island chain. And their standards are LOWER than our proposed standards. The risk of tankers is just a bunch of hot air, thats all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chon derry Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, canuckistani said: 1. Its the best damn location there is. I'd much rather we contain any potential spill in the burrard inlet- an area of already high traffic with messy water from micro-leakages all the time, than break ground in pristine territory. theres an inference in this statement that hints of a lack of confidence in the"safey " and or movement of oil/heavy oil , shouldn't we have more confidence in all that were being force feed about tanker traffic and oil spills or mitagation of oil spills????? Edited January 19, 2019 by chon derry 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliboy Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 44 minutes ago, luckylager said: Which isn't actually true. Currently BC is on hook for any and all cleanup costs in the event of a spill or leak. That sounds fair, right? Exxon paid billions for the Alaska spill, BP paid over 60 billion for the Gulf of Mexico disaster, Kinder Morgan was on the hook but once the Feds bought the pipeline they are on the hook, for the pipeline and the terminal. BC and The Feds would respond to a tanker spill and then go after whomever for the costs according to the Canada Shipping Act and the Marine Liability Act. More info here. https://www.transmountain.com/spill-liability Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chon derry Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 (edited) 20 minutes ago, canuckistani said: bad weather in the pacific NW you say ? Sure. But its nowhere as bad or as rough as the Sea of Okhotsk, actually Dixon entrance Hecate strait , queen charlotte sound IS THE 3RD WORST BODY OF WATER ON THE PLANET. Edited January 19, 2019 by chon derry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts