B.C. rejects Northern Gateway project over environmental concerns

[G Huxley]

Hooray, its a great day for B.C.`s pristine environment. Our greatest natural resource.

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-rejects-northern-gateway-project-over-environmental-concerns-1.1305479#ixzz2UtWTXypT

Edited May 31, 2013 by G Huxley

[TimG]

This will clear the way for oil-by-rail to Prince Rupert.

Plus it is will be a lot harder to argue against the Vancouver pipeline expansion considering the fact that bitumen is already moving out of Vancouver,

Edited May 31, 2013 by TimG

[G Huxley]

It must feel very patriotic to be a conservative praying for our oil to be sent in a great flood to China regardless of the consequences on the environment.

Edited June 1, 2013 by G Huxley

[Guest]

Where was your keyboard made?

This link seems to indicate it's all part of the process. The Feds will have the final say.

Personally, I think if Enbridge can't answer the concerns BC has then they don't deserve to build the pipeline.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/05/31/bc-northern-gateway-rejected.html

Edited June 1, 2013 by bcsapper

[TimG]

It must feel very patriotic to be a conservative praying for our oil to be sent in a great flood to China regardless of the consequences on the environment.

Not really. I just suspect that most of what passes for "environmental concerns" are baseless pretexts used by Luddites to stop industrial development because they think the economy runs on fairy dust and unicorn farts. Edited June 1, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

Personally, I think if Enbridge can't answer the concerns BC has then they don't deserve to build the pipeline.

I suspect that no matter what Enbridge does there will always be "questions" because it is impossible to predict the future. The only thing that one can do is manage risk (which implies there is a non-zero chance of bad things happening). Given that context someone who wants an excuse to reject the pipeline will *always* have a list of "questions" that Enbridge can't answer and if Enbridge answers them they can move the goal posts and come up with new "questions".

IOW - the fact that the BC government claims to have "questions" does not mean that Enbridge has not done everything possible to manage risk. It may be just an excuse. That said, the process has not completed and it is too soon to determine whether the "questions" are excuses or legitimate issues.

Edited June 1, 2013 by TimG

[Guest]

I think the BC Government wants to okay the pipeline. Enbridge just has to give them what they want in terms of risk management and cleanup resources. I'm sure they can afford it.

I'm fairly confident it will go through eventually.

Edited June 1, 2013 by bcsapper

[G Huxley]

Where was your keyboard made?

China

[G Huxley]

TimG its the oil fanatics who are the luddites. Oil was the great new technology in the 19th century!!! The 20th century saw most of its major wars based on it.

Its the 21st century now. Oil is the tech of the past. The oil luddites are terrified of losing their billions just like the original luddites were terrified of losing their jobs to new sewing machines that would make them redundant.

Edited June 1, 2013 by G Huxley

[TimG]

TimG its the oil fanatics who are the luddites. Oil was the great new technology in the 19th century!!! The 20th century saw most of its major wars based on it.

I see you are one of those people that believes the world can be powered by fairy dust and unicorn farts.

Although we will eventually need to migrate away from oil there are simply no viable alternatives at this time. That is why no credible energy analyst thinks fossil fuels are going away any time soon. Oil, gas and coal are the energy source of the 21th century whether you like it or not.

When someone comes up with a viable alternative I will be happy to use it.

But none of the technologies that we currently know about are going to do it.

Edited June 1, 2013 by TimG

[margrace]

I don,t understand the need by the conservatives to sell our oil to china and bring in workers from that country. Why do they want to destroy Canada? Well that is what Randism is all about and they are a bunch of randites

[TimG]

I don,t understand the need by the conservatives to sell our oil to china and bring in workers from that country.

What does one have to do from the other?

I think that we should maximize the value we get for our resources by getting our customers to compete for the supply. Right now the US has a monopoly and that is costing the Canadian economy billions. Why do people who insist on blocking pipelines want Canada subsidize US oil consumption?

As for foreign guest workers: very much opposed. Resource companies must be required to train local workers and pay the wages required to get local workers. If the only exceptions would be to allow short term guest workers with specialized technical expertise so they can train Canadians.

Edited June 1, 2013 by TimG

[Scotty]

TimG its the oil fanatics who are the luddites. Oil was the great new technology in the 19th century!!! The 20th century saw most of its major wars based on it.

It's nauseatingly self-righteous stuff like that which makes me wish Alberta would just cut off all oil shipments to BC. Then you could either walk wherever you wanted, or import your oil by big, fat tankers...

[Wilber]

Considering Enbridge's track record and things like this, it's hard not to think these guys are an accident waiting to happen. I don't have much confidence in them operating in such a remote and sensitive area.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/05/pol-enbridge-breaks-neb-safety-rules.html

[waldo]

This link seems to indicate it's all part of the process. The Feds will have the final say.

not that it will probably get that far... but let's have Harper Conservatives fight an election over a forced pipeline practice/policy!

[waldo]

It's nauseatingly self-righteous stuff

agreed! Imagine Alberta... Harper Conservatives... having to deal with all those "enemies of the state"!

[Guest]

not that it will probably get that far... but let's have Harper Conservatives fight an election over a forced pipeline practice/policy!

I honestly don't see it ever being forced. As I stated earlier, any company that wants to put a pipeline in should satisfy the requirements. While it's not possible to rule out accidents completely, I'm pretty sure the technology exists to make sure the effects of one are manageable. Combine that with a fund provided up front by the company to clean up any spills. When the money runs out you shut in the pipeline until they top up the funds.

[waldo]

I honestly don't see it ever being forced. As I stated earlier, any company that wants to put a pipeline in should satisfy the requirements. While it's not possible to rule out accidents completely, I'm pretty sure the technology exists to make sure the effects of one are manageable. Combine that with a fund provided up front by the company to clean up any spills. When the money runs out you shut in the pipeline until they top up the funds.

there is no (current) technology to deal with sludge spills... this is sludge to the bottom, not an oil surface skim.

I highly doubt Enbridge would accept the risk... and liability... cost estimates, even as conservative as they are described (on some accounts).

[The_Squid]

BC is not willing to take the huge environmental risk associated with the proposed pipeline. It's not that difficult to figure out why, nor is it unreasonable.

[G Huxley]

Although we will eventually need to migrate away from oil there are simply no viable alternatives at this time. That is why no credible energy analyst thinks fossil fuels are going away any time soon. Oil, gas and coal are the energy source of the 21th century whether you like it or not.

When someone comes up with a viable alternative I will be happy to use it.

But none of the technologies that we currently know about are going to do it.

Rubbish. We have electric technology right now. 100% of Iceland's energy is renewable. 90% of BC's energy is renewable. All we need are electric vehicles.

Yes we can still use a bit of oil, but only a fraction of what we are currently using.

[TimG]

Rubbish. We have electric technology right now.

The market for a vehicle that has to left parked for several hours after an hour or so of driving is tiny. Given that there are some basic laws of physics that govern the time it takes to charge a vehicle it is unlikely that incremental improvements will make these vehicles more useful. It is take a some new technology which we do not have today.

100% of Iceland's energy is renewable.

Iceland is sitting on a volcano. The overwhelming majority of people don't have such a convenient source of free heat. The same limitation applies to hydro (most of the rivers that can be damned have been dammed which means there is no room to increase global hydro capacity).

We need energy sources that are useful no matter what the local geography and that means coal, gas or oil.

The 21th century is century of fossil fuels whether you like it or not.

Edited June 1, 2013 by TimG

[Guest]

Rubbish. We have electric technology right now. 100% of Iceland's energy is renewable. 90% of BC's energy is renewable. All we need are electric vehicles.

Yes we can still use a bit of oil, but only a fraction of what we are currently using.

I have no idea of the answer to this question so I am not trying to catch you out. I ask out of genuine curiosity.

If all the vehicles in BC were electric, how much more hydro power would be needed to keep them charged?

Would you be okay with the flooding of pristine wilderness to build other dams, if required, given that it wouldn't make that much difference in the long run?

Edit> It would make a lot of difference to the air quality in the Lower Mainland, but negligible difference to Climate Change, or to the use of fossil fuels in the rest of the world.

Edited June 1, 2013 by bcsapper

[Wilber]

This isn't about BC protecting the rest of the world from the evils of oil, it's about BC accepting responsibility for the integrity of its own envireonment. If its concerns can be satisfactorily addressed, there should be a way.

[G Huxley]

If all the vehicles in BC were electric, how much more hydro power would be needed to keep them charged?

We already produce far more electrical power via Hydro than we use. We sell massive amounts of power to California.

There are of course other renewable resources like windmills, solar etc.

But all you get is the usual sad excuses. Some birds fly into them. My grandma doesn't like the sound they make. They ruin the view. You'd need to actually build them and we are conservatives in power so we never will. etc. etc. etc.

[Guest]

We already produce far more electrical power via Hydro than we use. We sell massive amounts of power to California.

There are of course other renewable resources like windmills, solar etc.

But all you get is the usual sad excuses. Some birds fly into them. My grandma doesn't like the sound they make. They ruin the view. You'd need to actually build them and we are conservatives in power so we never will. etc. etc. etc.

I wonder how BC would like to do without the revenue from CA, and the potential revenue from the pipeline.

I don't think it's very fair of a purported environmentalist to run down people's health concerns simply because you like the source of their concern.