Harper takes over 'energy projects' decisions

[Wilber]

The biggest environmental risk comes from complacency 20 or 30 years from now. So we need to set up systems that are self funding. i.e. a portion of the oil revenue must be directly directly to the government departments that enforce the rules. But it can't be user-pay because that creates conflicts of interest.

OK but lets set this up before the pipelines are built because if it isn't, it never will be. The attitude here seems to be, build the thing and we'll deal with all that inconvenient stuff later. Ya right.

[TimG]

Says you. Being good neighbours doesn't mean ramming something down a neighbour's throat without any regard for their concerns.

Objections must be rational to be taken seriously. The people who oppose to all pipelines under all conditions are irrational ideologues and are impossible to accommodate and must be ignored. People who lay out their concerns and specify conditions for acceptance are rational and those concerns need to be taken into account. Edited April 25, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

OK but lets set this up before the pipelines are built because if it isn't, it never will be. The attitude here seems to be, build the thing and we'll deal with all that inconvenient stuff later. Ya right.

That is the exact opposite of what I am saying. Whatever we do we need to make sure a long term plan is put in place to manage the pipeline and tanker traffic - a plan that is not cut back after years without an incident.

[eyeball]

Hey, why don't you stop implying that those nasty Yellow Peril is planning on invading?

I'm not, I'm replying to the oft-heard implication that they're a threat, made by people who are also big boosters of selling raw natural resources to China.

Your racism is not very subtle.

It's nonexistent actually, and only an ignorant lying slanderer would say otherwise.

[waldo]

Nothing is zero risk but whatever risk there is has to be acceptable to BC. A major spill in Georgia Straight would make the Exxon Valdez look trivial and one on the north coast would be at least as bad. Alberta accepts none of that risk. Zero, Zip.

ya ya, all these guys trumpeting the balance sheet risk assessment... just a share of royalties they so - no problem!

the award winning documentary SPOIL, showcasing the splendour of nature worth protecting, and the people privileged to live within it... highlights from the International League of Conservation Photographers, in the search for those iconic shots within the Great Bear Rainforest!

as for your direct question,

start in around 31:00 of the film to gain an appreciation of the overall complexities in the tanker passage route, to see graphic representation and comparisons of, and to, the sunken BC ferry, 'Queen of the North' & the Exxon Valdez spill

.

[eyeball]

The environmental risk is small because people have been do the same thing around the world for decades.

People have been building single pipelines that cross over 600 fish bearing streams in the course of one project with agencies as stellar as DFO protecting those streams for decades? Where?

Tankers yadda yadda tankers blah blah blah.

First things first...lets deal with the problem of protecting 600 fish bearing streams that stand between Alberta and the tankers.

But speaking of first things first... Ottawa is now instructing DFO officers to enforce the protection of fish habitat only where it can be proved that the lack of protection directly impacted a fishery which of course in most cases will be after the fact. The environment actually comes second or worse.

In reality what we really need to do first is deal with the river of pure bullshit that is ferrying Harper's decisions down from on high in Ottawa.

Edited April 25, 2012 by eyeball

[TimG]

First things first...lets deal with the problem of protecting 600 fish bearing streams that stand between Alberta and the tankers.

What is the economic value of these fisheries vs. the economic value of royalties generated by the oil sands?

[eyeball]

What is the economic value of these fisheries vs. the economic value of royalties generated by the oil sands?

I'd say the short term value of these royalties is less than the long term value of these fisheries, many of which have been around for thousands of years. What's the term of these pipelines, 40 years? It's not even close in my mind and thousands of people's minds who still depend on these fisheries and who can see why they should remain invaluable for generations to come.

Edited April 25, 2012 by eyeball

[Tilter]

I didn't read the article yet, but where the hell is the opposition on this. I'm seriously disappointed in Mulcair and the NDP.

Just look in any Torstar family of newspapres----if yuou don't find this exact article you'll stumble across 10 other anti Prime Minister Harper (and he is PRIME MINISTER HARPER) and at least 15 other articles praising former liberals. (and they ARE FORMER liberals)

[waldo]

What is the economic value of these fisheries vs. the economic value of royalties generated by the oil sands?

I'd say the short term value of these royalties is less than the long term value of these fisheries, many of which have been around for thousands of years. What's the term of these pipelines, 40 years? It's not even close in my mind and thousands of people's minds who still depend on these fisheries and who can see why they should remain invaluable for generations to come.

eyeball, you need perspective on TimG here!

Peak oil/gas is a myth because price rises lead to more supply.

[Jack Weber]

eyeball, you need perspective on TimG here!

I guess it's a form of "Supply" Side economics???

[jacee]

And how do you think the thousands of kilomters of existing pipelines that crisscross provinces including BC were built? By force? By extortion?

Yep, with cooperation between provinces.

Now you're getting the idea.

Cooperation ... everybody cooperates with the Alberta bulldozer or else ...

Is that about it?

[TimG]

I'd say the short term value of these royalties is less than the long term value of these fisheries, many of which have been around for thousands of years.

And no oil spill is going to change that. Nature does recover and it is dishonest to pretend that any damage is permanent.

[jacee]

And no oil spill is going to change that. Nature does recover and it is dishonest to pretend that any damage is permanent.

Exxon Valdez Spill, 15 Years Later: Damage Lingers

"There are isolated pockets where you can still find effects of the oil spill," Rice said. Among the animal species that have not recovered are common loons, harbor seals, harlequin ducks and Pacific herring. Sea otters, which eat clams buried underground are particularly affected by the subsurface oil. The clams may be clean, but sea otters may get oil on their fur, which requires energy to cope with.

"It's like getting the flu three times a year instead of once," Rice said. "It makes you sicker and less capable of feeding. Sea otters eat 25 percent of their body weight every day. If that's lowered to 15 percent over, say, ten days, they will probably die." percent over, say, ten days, they will probably die."

Sea otters have been found with increased levels of a substance contained in petroleum products known as cytochrome P450.

[TimG]

Exxon Valdez Spill, 15 Years Later: Damage Lingers

15 years later the effects are barely measurable. In 30-50 they will be completely gone. eyeball was trying to suggest that the damage would affect streams for 1000s of years. A position that is clearly nonsense based on the historical experience with oil spills. We should do everything possible to minimize the risk of a spill but this notion that a spill is the end of the world is not rational. They can be cleaned up and nature recovers. Edited April 26, 2012 by TimG

[Wilber]

15 years later the effects are barely measurable. In 30 they will be completely gone. eyeball was trying to suggest that the damage would affect streams for 1000s of years. A position that is clearly nonsense based on the historical experience with oil spills. I am not saying we should not do everything possible to minimize the risk of a spill but this notion that a spill is the end of the world is not rational.

Twenty Years Later

[TimG]

Twenty Years Later

Nothing in that link suggests there are any serious problems 20 years later.

[Wilber]

Nothing in that link suggests there are any serious problems 20 years later.

Not for Alberta.

"Following the oil and its impacts over the past 20 years has changed our understanding of the long-term damage from an oil spill," the council stated. "We know that risk assessment for future spills must consider what the total damages will be over a longer period of time, rather than only the acute damages in the days and weeks following a spill."

."One of the most stunning revelations" from studies over the last decade, the council said, "is that Exxon Valdez oil persists in the environment and, in places, is nearly as toxic as it was the first few weeks after the spill."

Edited April 26, 2012 by Wilber

[TimG]

Not for Alberta.

Not for Alaskans either.

Valdez oil persists in the environment and, in places, is nearly as toxic as it was the first few weeks after the spill.

So? The coast of California and the Gulf of Mexico is constantly "polluted" by natural oil seepage. Why is trace amounts of oil acceptable in these places but not in Alaska?

If you want to make a case you need to show that this persistent oil actually causes serious problems. I don't see any listed in that article.

Edited April 26, 2012 by TimG

[huh]

Can someone tell me why we have been transporting oil by tanker along the eastern seaboard and into the bay of fundy for many decades but for some reason the coast of BC is untouchable. The bay of fundy was very nearly named one of the new wonders of the world, yet no one is protesting the oil shipments there. Some of you are using that oil right now.

[Wilber]

Not for Alaskans either.

So? The coast of California and the Gulf of Mexico is constantly "polluted" by natural oil seepage. Why is trace amounts of oil acceptable in these places but not in Alaska?

If you want to make a case you need to show that this persistent oil actually causes serious problems. I don't see any listed in that article.

I don't have to make a case, you do.

[jacee]

What is the economic value of these fisheries vs. the economic value of royalties generated by the oil sands?

An ecosystem is a biological system consisting of all the living organisms or biotic components in a particular area and the nonliving or abiotic component with which the organisms interact, suc[ 1] as air, mineral soil, water and sunlight.[ 1]

Key processes in ecosystems include the capture of light energy and carbon through photosynthesis, the transfer of carbon and energy through food webs, and the release of nutrients and carbon through decomposition. ecosystem functioning, as do the processes of disturbance and succession.

Ecosystems provide a variety of goods and services upon which people depend; the principles of ecosystem management suggest that rather than managing individual species, natural resources should be managed at the level of the ecosystem.

It's appalling ignorance to understand the earth's ecosystems that sustain human life only as a source of money.

“When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted, when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then will you discover you can’t eat money.” (Cree prophecy)

But of course, it takes some collective work and spirit to protect the systems by which we live from the predators among us.

[TimG]

I don't have to make a case, you do.

Sorry. You are the one claiming that oil spills create irreparable damage. All of the evidence I have seen from historical oil spills suggests that claim is false that the persistent effects are mild and are next to impossible to measure. Even the links that you provided support my point. Edited April 26, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

“When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted, when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then will you discover you can’t eat money.” (Cree prophecy)

I am interested in facts. Not your religious beliefs. How would you react if some Christian started using the rapture as an argument for some policy? Your argument is no different.

[eyeball]

The construction of the Northern pipeline across 600 fish bearing rivers and streams is my immediate concern.

The Hell's Gate slide during railway construction along the Fraser River which in addition to the damage done to salmon runs, caused socio-economic and political upheaval in BC and between BC and the US that's lasted to this day. The Coquihalla Highway and The Island Highway are other mega type projects that impacted fish habitat despite all the public concern and official assurances.

Mark my words, if DFO has anything to do with these stream crossings a great many of them will turn to shit.