ReeferMadness

You can't compare dams to just pipelines - you'd have to compare damage from hydro power to damage from oil and gas. And you're right - it isn't even close.

Identified - not rectified. If you take the time to see what the whistle blower (a materials engineer who had accountability for QA) said, you'll see that Trans Canada has a track record of putting profits ahead of safety.

:rolleyes: Really? The Montreal equivalent of the Fraser Institute commissions a poll to get exactly the answer it wants and you think that proves something? I notice a few things are lacking in this poll. Like: - Would you prefer clean renewable energy to energy derived from biotoxic, mutagenic, carcinogenic, dangerous sources that foul the air and water? - Would you support a project that will serve to increase tar sands production and increase the chances of dangerous climate change? - Are you OK with a company piping sludge that couldn't be cleaned up even after dredging the Kalamazoo River over the source of your drinking water? Or how about even: - Do you support the construction of the Energy East pipeline? Take your self serving propaganda elsewhere.

This is a case of half-assed research. How many of these cases are really a result of marijuana use? How does he know? And why haven't the rates gone up for residents?

Well, it's not like the bible is short on references to sex. Some of it is rather disturbing, though.

The 'big money' is on the the 'anti-oil' side? :lol: As opposed to the oil companies which don't have 'big money'? And on what planet is this happening?

He could do that. But when half the provinces turn around and make a mess of it, the opposition parties will pin the results back on him. So, I would like to see the Liberals go harder on this, I understand them wanting to take their time.

If people were forced to face the consequences of their burning oil, they would stop buying it. The problem is that the consequences are widely spread over space and time so everyone can treat it as someone else's problem. Try to introduce even a tiny carbon tax (which might cover 1/10 of the cost of the actual damage due to fossil fuel use) and the premier of Saskatchewan throws a temper tantrum. The free market would sort it out if oil were priced appropriately.

Welcome to the Anthropocene epoch, a disaster in the making. The only question is whether anyone will be left to make the movie. The issue, IMHO, is the dichotomy between natural systems (collectively referred to as the environment) and systems of human creation (collectively referred to as the economy). Natural systems are enormously complex, largely beyond our control and the consequences of changes can take decades to manifest themselves (and centuries to return to equilibrium). Human systems, by contrast, react much more quickly and are by definition completely under our control. Yet, the same people who vociferously insist that the environment can be toyed with right up to the point of where they can visually see someone getting hurt will insist with equal zeal that the economy is sacrosanct and should be left to "market forces". It can be thought of as a struggle between greed and fear. The problem is that the forces of greed are primarily the wealthy who believe they have little to fear; whereas the forces of fear are the desperately poor who are mostly powerless. So, until the wealthy and powerful (and their vast minions who they have co-opted into the religious pursuit of free-market capitalism) feel the fear, governments will continue to pay lip service to the environment while enacting policies that favor profits.

The debate over the Energy East pipeline has featured a relative handful of public figures who have been brave enough to challenge the financial interests who stand to make vast fortunes by piping highly explosive light bakken crude (this is what exploded in lac Megantic) and incredibly messy dilbit from Alberta's tar sands. Since the disaster of the Kalamazoo River oil spill in 2010 established that you can spend years and a billion dollars without completely cleaning up the mess, it's worthwhile asking about TransCanada's commitment to pipeline safety. Spoiler Alert: the answer isn't good. Even the lapdog National Energy Board skewered Trans Canada in a 2014 audit, finding it non-compliant in 4 of 9 areas, And Evan Vokes, a former engineer with Trans Canada (since turned whistle blower) has questioned the safety of transforming a 40 year old gas pipeline to an oil pipeline and the culture of TransCanada when it comes to pipeline safety. Specifically, he accuses the company of putting profits before safety. Is it prudent to trust this company to a venture which could pollute a Canadian river system for years to come? And what of the threat of it threatening Canada's second largest city?

There is no reason to believe that is true. One MLW member (I can't recall who) said he saw an Enbridge environmental video and it didn't even mention the Kalamazoo disaster. If they can't acknowledge it, they won't learn from it.

That's an excellent analogy. What you're missing is that the operator is in Alberta and the leak is in Michigan. If the leak is in your house, you're going to err on the side of caution. Apparently, if the leak is somewhere else, you're just going to screw around with it until someone phones you to tell you there's a leak. And if the leak happens to be at night and nobody finds it for 18 hours, oh well!

No, actually it sounds like the geniuses at Enbridge had no business operating a pipeline at all. I'm trying to imagine how all of this went down. Operator: There is an alarm that may indicate a leak. We should shut it down until someone can visually verify. Manager: No way, that will cost us too much money. Just pressurize it and shut it off. Operator: That didn't work. Manager: Well just keep on doing it for another 18 hours. If there's really a leak, someone will tell us about it. Michigan resident, phoning Enbridge: Ummm, could you tell us when the toxic sludge pouring into the river is going to stop?

Your posting makes no sense. Ranked ballots are a voting mechanism, not a type or class of voting system. Some voting systems (including some proportional voting systems) use ranked ballots. And yes, I know the same error is repeatedly made by the MSM. Which is why a referendum is not a great idea.

How is any of this in any way relevant? The only reason any of them were there is because incompetent or negligent Enbridge employees ignored the alarm bells. It was left to the local people to tell the idiots at Enbridge their pipeline was spouting oil into the environment. You're attempting to somehow deflect criticism by implying that they weren't able to figure it out soon enough. If in the 21st century Enbridge lacks the capability to figure out it's losing a million gallons of its biotoxic, mutagenic, carcinogenic, explosive product, it shouldn't be in the business.

Your desperate attempts to deflect accountability are duly noted. As is the irony of your handle. The rural firefighters (likely volunteers since it is a rural area) were unable to find the source of the leak in the dark. They may or may have not known about the existence of the pipeline. This is somehow surprising?? So, what's missing in this story? Oh, yeah. It's the gross negligence and/or incompetence on the part of the employees in the Alberta control centre who actually had evidence of a leak and did NOTHING until the next day when somebody called them.

Yet.....

Really??? You REALLY need to blame this on someone else. I hope there is someone else in Alberta who is capable of accepting responsibility. Read what I and OGFT wrote above. There was an alarm went off in ALBERTA. Not Michigan, ALBERTA. Did you get that or do I need to write it a few more times?

No doubt they have false alarms from time to time. And no doubt there are some negative repercussions for the poor sap who shuts off the pipeline for a false alarm!

And sometimes today's irrational fringe turns into tomorrow's accepted narrative. I keep an open mind on all things and look at the world in terms of available evidence. Sure, lots of the theories are simply implausible but I think there are lots of legitimate questions. And you have to remember that the American government really needed a nice pat answer to give the people. Maybe there were elements that were made up to fill the gaps. I'm still skeptical, for example, of how much evidence they really had that bin Laden was behind it. How long did it take for them to accuse him? Days? I don't recall but it seemed like they had the culprit awfully fast. Most people, it seems, accept the video of him as proof but it could have been faked. Or his claiming responsibility could have been a lie (it made him famous and a celebrity among a lot of people in the world). And when the Taliban offered to turn him over to a neutral third party for trial, it wasn't even considered. Somebody fabricated evidence of WMD. So, when those same people say other things that can't be independently verified, I'm skeptical. You talk like there are only 2 possible narratives: the story the US government told and some vast government conspiracy that involved thousands of people. In reality, the possibilities are endless. Just because some or even most of what the US said is true, it doesn't mean it all is. And BTW, there was a government conspiracy to fabricate evidence of WMD to justify the Iraq invasion. Or do you think that's nutty too? I treat sasquatch the same way I treat alien civilizations or the lost city of Atlantis or alternate universes or the afterlife. I'm interested in possibilities but there isn't compelling evidence to support any of them. Literally billions of people believe in a supernatural being who sits in a magical kingdom, judging heaven and earth. Lots of them believe that if you mentally asking him for things, he'll grant wishes or smite enemies. Do you thing they are all nutbars?

Yeah. It was actually the fault of someone in Alberta. Don't worry, though. I'm sure they would be MUCH more concerned if it was Montreal's water! :lol:

Yeah, let's forget all about 9/11. After all a Republican president would never lie to the people right? :lol: