Northern Gateway Pipeline Lawsuit

[monty16]

Your are misrepresenting my views. I don't think scientists that agree with me are any more right than the ones who disagree. The difference is scientists that agree with generally also acknowledge the limits of their own understanding and don't try to push ideas on society based on data which they know is unreliable.

It is the activist scientists who pontificate in media like clergy and insist that they should not be questioned because they are "scientists" are the people which I have the most contempt for.

I too think that cyber has described you correctly. It's really pretty obvious that those opposing mainstream science are only doing it for political and economic reasons. It's over now Tim and it's time to either back away from the debate to save face or come over to the side of right. Take cyber's comment seriously for your own good or just continue to be the subject of our mirth! Be thankful he wasted that amount of time on you!

Edited June 4, 2014 by monty16

[cybercoma]

I'd have to know what field they each studied. It seems every recent EA that doesn't shut down a project is 'deeply flawed'.

One of the scientists who signed was on CBC Radio this morning. He was one of the reviewers for the research used in the report. He said the final report is nothing like what was reviewed and that it contains significantly biased information. I'm getting a bit tired of people saying scientists are biased for pointing out bias.

[TimG]

I'm getting a bit tired of people saying scientists are biased for pointing out bias.

An I am getting tied of people pretending that activists claiming to be scientists should be taken seriously.

From the Vancouver Sun:

The chief concern from the group is that the panel did not look at the increase in global greenhouse gas emissions that will result from the expansion in oil sands production.

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Scientists+letter+Prime+Minister+Stephen+Harper+Reject/9903450/story.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3a+canwest%2fF7477+(Vancouver+Sun+-+Business)

IOW - you have a 300 ideologues who know nothing of economics claiming that hypothetical concerns about CO2 should mean that we do not develop infrastructure to sell the products we have. Why exactly should we care about such opinions?

[cybercoma]

Sounds like an intelligent and reasonable conclusion. They're talking about greenhouse gases so they must "know nothing of economics."

[Keepitsimple]

Well, it bothers me that Tim is so quick to dismiss concerns of British Columbia residents without even perusing the report from the 'over 300 scientists' from all over the world. What is the harm in delaying this decision.

What business is it of scientists from other countries about how we get our oil to market? It's infuriating to see so-called scientists (AKA activists) from US universities slamming the Northern Gateway - when their own President brags about his administration building enough pipelines to "encircle the globe - and then some". These hypocrits are also from the same country where 40% of their electricity comes from dirty coal......and they have the nerve to sign a declaration against building one pipeline. Hello - give yourself a shake - read political activism here. Since you are so enamoured by scientitsts - how about the 60 scientists from around the world who advised Stephen Harper to think carefully about Climate Change/Global Warming and the Kyoto fiasco. Would you give as much attention to them?

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/openletter2006-3.php

Edited June 4, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Shady]

What business is it of scientists from other countries about how we get our oil to market? It's infuriating to see so-called scientists (AKA activists) from US universities slamming the Northern Gateway - when their own President brags about his administration building enough pipelines to "encircle the globe - and then some". These hypocrits are also from the same country where 40% of their electricity comes from dirty coal......and they have the nerve to gign a declaration against building one pipeline. Hello - give yourself a share - read political activism here. Since you are so enamoured by scientitsts - how about the 60 scientists from around the world who advised Stephen Harper to think carefully about Climate Change/Global Warming and the Kyoto fiasco. Would you give as much attention to them?

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/openletter2006-3.php

Exactly. And all these activists accomplish is pushing more jobs overseas. Shrinking the middle class, lowering our standard of living, and making it hard to pay for social services.

[GostHacked]

Ships sink, pipelines burst.

Can we have a third option?

[Mighty AC]

Keystone 1, a modern "state of the art" pipeline which opened 4 years ago, leaked 14 times in it's first year alone. Since we know that pipelines leak often, can we route them through areas that will minimize the impact when they leak? Or at least contain the risk to existing areas by building new capacity along existing pipeline routes.

First of all, critical freshwater systems and wetlands should be avoided but it must be possible to build redundant safety systems when water bodies and sensitive areas must be spanned. Why can't we include secondary trough systems to catch and channel oil away from waterways when the pipeline inevitably leaks.

[Smallc]

Sounds like an intelligent and reasonable conclusion. They're talking about greenhouse gases so they must "know nothing of economics."

As has been pointed out a multitude of times, the oil will be shipped no matter what. Not building the pipelines will only increase greenhouse gasses given the shipping methods involved. If their chief concern is ghgs, they're wrong.

[Shady]

As has been pointed out a multitude of times, the oil will be shipped no matter what. Not building the pipelines will only increase greenhouse gasses given the shipping methods involved. If their chief concern is ghgs, they're wrong.

You're exactly right. But I suspect that their cheif concern isn't ghgs. It's the elimination of fossil fuels as energy sources, at any cost.

[On Guard for Thee]

You're exactly right. But I suspect that their cheif concern isn't ghgs. It's the elimination of fossil fuels as energy sources, at any cost.

And elimination of fossil fuels eliminates what? Maybe ghgs.

[TimG]

Or at least contain the risk to existing areas by building new capacity along existing pipeline routes.

I am fine with this. Two routes - east and west already exist. Forget Gateway - build these two.

[WestCoastRunner]

What business is it of scientists from other countries about how we get our oil to market?

Good grief! The analysis was signed by 300 scientists from universities from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island, along with colleagues from international institutions including Stanford, Cornell and Oxford.

And what business is it of folks who do not live in BC that we exploit the waters of BC to get oil to the Asian markets?

[On Guard for Thee]

Good grief! The analysis was signed by 300 scientists from universities from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island, along with colleagues from international institutions including Stanford, Cornell and Oxford.

And what business is it of folks who do not live in BC that we exploit the waters of BC to get oil to the Asian markets?

Yes but we all know scientists are nothing more than foreign funded eco terrorists. Just ask Joe Oliver.

[WestCoastRunner]

Keystone 1, a modern "state of the art" pipeline which opened 4 years ago, leaked 14 times in it's first year alone. Since we know that pipelines leak often, can we route them through areas that will minimize the impact when they leak? Or at least contain the risk to existing areas by building new capacity along existing pipeline routes.

First of all, critical freshwater systems and wetlands should be avoided but it must be possible to build redundant safety systems when water bodies and sensitive areas must be spanned. Why can't we include secondary trough systems to catch and channel oil away from waterways when the pipeline inevitably leaks.

This is why we need to postpone the decision. To further explore and perform analysis on other options.

[jacee]

http://m.thetelegram.com/Business/2014-06-09/article-3757045/Natural-Resources-minister-back-in-B.C.-as-clock-ticks-down-on-pipeline-decision/1

Natural Resources minister back in B.C. as clock ticks down on pipeline decision.

With the clock ticking down for his governments decision on Northern Gateway, Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford said Monday there have been significant strides in pipeline and marine traffic safety in talks between Ottawa and First Nations.

...

In B.C., investment in natural gas is expected to bring $180 billion in economic benefits over the next 25 years, he said. Across Canada, hundreds of resource projects worth $650 billion are planned or underway.

However, none of that can come to fruition unless we have a strong and confident relationship, in particular between First Nations communities and the provincial government and federal government, Rickford told reporters.

Ooooo ... they're really sucking up now!

.

[On Guard for Thee]

Exactly. And all these activists accomplish is pushing more jobs overseas. Shrinking the middle class, lowering our standard of living, and making it hard to pay for social services.

Maybe because science doesn't recognize borders.

[jacee]

Ships sink, pipelines burst.

Can we have a third option?

What about refining it before shipping?

'World's greenest' $10-billion refinery pitched to process oilsands crude on B.C. coast

My preference would be to refine in Alberta at the oilsands, but if BC wants the work and the pipeline to the refinery ... ?

Edited June 10, 2014 by jacee

[overthere]

Maybe because science doesn't recognize borders.

Neither does money.

If Canada refuses to sell its resources internationally, the capital investments, jobs, and tax revenue just get done elsewhere. Total(France) just postponed a major Canadian project because of our endless waffling. They'll spend the designated capital money somehwere else in the world, there are many candidates for projects.

Oh well, who needs public services or a social contract anyway.

[overthere]

What about refining it before shipping?

'World's greenest' $10-billion refinery pitched to process oilsands crude on B.C. coast

My preference would be to refine in Alberta at the oilsands, but if BC wants the work and the pipeline to the refinery ... ?

Doesn't work like that, refineries are almost always located near their end markets. Different regions have different needs from the refinery.

It might make sense to upgrade the bitumwen to synthetic crude at the sites(and there are several upgraders in and around Fort Mac) but that is not what the owners of the material have chosen. They have invested billions in upgraders at existing Gulf Coast refineries.

Edited June 10, 2014 by overthere

[jacee]

Doesn't work like that, refineries are almost always located near their end markets. Different regions have different needs from the refinery.

It might make sense to upgrade the bitumwen to synthetic crude at the sites(and there are several upgraders in and around Fort Mac) but that is not what the owners of the material have chosen. They have invested billions in upgraders at existing Gulf Coast refineries.

This thread is about Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, so Gulf Coast isn't relevant.

.

[overthere]

Yes it is relevant, the same thing applies to Northern Gateway oil or Keystone oil.

Refineries are almost always adjacent to end users, and North Amertica has generally excess refining capacity now.

[waldo]

Total(France) just postponed a major Canadian project because of our endless waffling. They'll spend the designated capital money somehwere else in the world, there are many candidates for projects.

Oh well, who needs public services or a social contract anyway.

"endless waffling"? That's hardly the party line being spun! What about the ole margin spread... rising industry costs... rising cost pressures? Total only held 38% in Joslyn... what's stopping the combined majority shareholders (Suncor, Occidental, Inpex) from continuing on... even buying out Total?

[overthere]

Yeah, endless waffling. A big reason that all of them - jointly, with Total being the prime partner- decided to wait indefitnitely was that there is too much uncertainty in cost getting the product to market.

Couple of other examples of the same process failing: Mackenzie Valley pipeline, decades in the review and approval process. By the time everybody(including the First Nations affected) had decided it was OK to proceed, the people with the money had moved their capital on to other projects long ago. I

We're watching another happening right now with LNG exports from Canada. BC govts for a couple of decades have sat on the big gas fields in northeast BC(some fields on the Alaska Hwy have been capped since the 70s). Now we will compete with other nations and particularly the US, for the leftovers in those LNG export markets at substantially lower prices.

Waffling.

We hurt ourselves continually. Everybody fights everybody. Our competitors laugh at us. Our potential customers scratch their heads in bewilderment.

[WestCoastRunner]

It is possible the Harper government will delay their decision to consult with First Nation communities, according to Grand Chief Stewart Philip. Harper knows if they approve the pipeline, the First Nation Communities will take the government to court and delay the project for years.

Let's hope it gets delayed!