WestCoastRunner Posted June 11, 2014 Author Report Posted June 11, 2014 The Harper govt and Enbridge just can't seem to get it that the majority of British Columbians do not want this pipeline. We cherish our province, our clean ocean, rivers, lakes, great seafood, a healthy tourist industry. Why would we want to threaten all that so we can ship toxic bitumen to the asian markets. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Spiderfish Posted June 11, 2014 Report Posted June 11, 2014 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? The economic prosperity of Alberta oil benefits all of Canada. Quote
Spiderfish Posted June 11, 2014 Report Posted June 11, 2014 He's pretty quick to dismiss any and all scientific conclusions that don't fit his framework. You seem to be pretty quick to blindly accept any and all that support yours. Quote
Spiderfish Posted June 11, 2014 Report Posted June 11, 2014 He's pretty quick to dismiss any and all scientific conclusions that don't fit his framework. Sure he is. Must work for an oil company. Wouldn't be surprised. Typical. Quote
Spiderfish Posted June 11, 2014 Report Posted June 11, 2014 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'. I agree. Quote
Spiderfish Posted June 11, 2014 Report Posted June 11, 2014 I mean, 'what is the harm in delaying the decision' until further analysis is done? I have no problem delaying the decision if further relevant analysis is required. If the purpose of delaying the decision is just a strategy to stall it indefinitely, I fail to see how this could be beneficial. The Rainforest Conservation Foundation's self proclaimed mission statement is that they are "a team of conservationists and scientists empowered by our research to protect the lands, waters and wildlife of coastal British Columbia". I have a feeling they are none too concerned with the economic justification of the pipeline, they are quite likely only looking at the "cost" side and minimizing or negating the "benefit" side of the equation. Comprehensive analysis cannot be done without both sides of the equation. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted June 11, 2014 Report Posted June 11, 2014 This thread is about Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, so Gulf Coast isn't relevant. . It's very relevant - your proposal to build refineries in Canada means that all the resulting products would be transported to their markets by truck or by rail. Is that what you would consider to be an acceptable compromise? Liquified petroleum gas (LPG) Gasoline (also known as petrol) Naphtha Kerosene and related jet aircraft fuels Diesel fuel Fuel oils Lubricating oils Paraffin wax Asphalt and tar Petroleum coke Sulfur Quote Back to Basics
WestCoastRunner Posted June 11, 2014 Author Report Posted June 11, 2014 The economic prosperity of Alberta oil benefits all of Canada. It's not all about economic prosperity. It's also about protecting our province. A recent poll found 67 per cent of British Columbians either want the project rejected or delayed for further review. Even in Kitimat, the proposed terminus for the tankers to carry the oil to Asia, there is a groundswell of opposition. A plebiscite there in April saw 58 per cent of residents vote against Enbridge, prompting the town's mayor and council to officially oppose the project. This from the community that probably has the most to gain in terms of jobs and economic benefits. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Spiderfish Posted June 11, 2014 Report Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) It's not all about economic prosperity. I never indicated that it was, I was simply responding to your question asking what business is it of folks who do not live in BC to use BC waters to get oil to the Asian markets. Unfortunately, there is not a lot of ocean coastline in Alberta. BC waters are Canadian waters. Alberta oil benefits all Canadians. Edited June 11, 2014 by Spiderfish Quote
eyeball Posted June 11, 2014 Report Posted June 11, 2014 BC waters are Canadian waters. This needs to change but it'll be up to BC's 1st Nations to make that call. I'd answer it in a heartbeat myself. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Smallc Posted June 11, 2014 Report Posted June 11, 2014 Aboriginals can't change the constitution. It doesn't need to change as the oceans are always of a natural interest. Quote
monty16 Posted June 11, 2014 Report Posted June 11, 2014 The economic prosperity of Alberta oil benefits all of Canada. In a limited way but it benefits big oil companies and Alberta much more. If the question was analyzed thoroughly it may surprise a lot of people to learn that increasing tarsands output to increase profit isn't going to benefit Canadians all that much. Output has already increased tremendously since about 99 to supply the US demands of 20 million barrels a day. And then there is the downside of it and the obvious tradeoff we are making to ignoring environmental effects of both the tarsands methods of oil extraction that I would bet nobody on this forum understands, along with just ensuring that we aren't at least coerced into more green energy development. Quote
Spiderfish Posted June 11, 2014 Report Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) And then there is the downside of it and the obvious tradeoff we are making to ignoring environmental effects of both the tarsands methods of oil extraction that I would bet nobody on this forum understands, along with just ensuring that we aren't at least coerced into more green energy development. There is no evidence to indicate that the JRP final report ignored any environmental effects other than claims made by Ecojustice. In fact, the JRP approval was provisional to 209 required conditions, including such environmental protection considerations as developing a marine mammal protection plan, researching heavy oil cleanup and conducting emergency response exercises. NGP recommended for approval, with conditions As far as oilsands extraction methods, this is a separate matter from the NGP approval process. Edited June 11, 2014 by Spiderfish Quote
eyeball Posted June 11, 2014 Report Posted June 11, 2014 Aboriginals can't change the constitution. It doesn't need to change as the oceans are always of a natural interest.I was thinking more along the lines of walking away from Canada's and writing their/our own. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
jacee Posted June 11, 2014 Report Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) I was thinking more along the lines of walking away from Canada's and writing their/our own.I'm intrigued by that idea, and I think it might gain support from a lot of Canadians, esp among the 40% + who don't trust any politicians and don't vote. . Edited June 11, 2014 by jacee Quote
Accountability Now Posted June 11, 2014 Report Posted June 11, 2014 I'm intrigued by that idea, and I think it might gain support from a lot of Canadians, esp among the 40% + who don't trust any politicians and don't vote. . Right...the 40% who don't care to simply cast a vote all of a sudden are going to care to write a new constitution. Good luck with that one! Quote
eyeball Posted June 12, 2014 Report Posted June 12, 2014 Give them something worth following and who knows where it could lead. I can't imagine anything more invigorating or intriguing than a chance to write a constitution that's better suited to my region and the people who live in it and depend on it for their livelihoods. The other regions can go piss up their own ropes as far as I'm concerned. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
WestCoastRunner Posted July 17, 2014 Author Report Posted July 17, 2014 The grounding of a bulk carrier ship near Prince Rupert this week highlights the grave risk of an oil spill if tanker traffic is allowed to increase dramatically on the North Coast, environmentalists and First Nations warn. This only adds credence to the latest lawsuits that have been brought against Enbridge. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
ReeferMadness Posted July 17, 2014 Report Posted July 17, 2014 (edited) I see the usual suspects are spouting the usual nonsense about how oil spills are not so bad and nature will clean them up for Enbridge. Meanwhile, Enbridge is still dredging the Kalamzoo River, 4 years after the spill there. It seems like intelligent people might insist that Enbridge clean up their last mess before being allowed to create a new one. But alas, there don't appear to be any intelligent people in decision making capacity on this deal. Dilbit is almost impossible to clean up. The diluent quickly evaporates leaving the tar-like heavy oil to float or sink in the water. I wonder how long it would take Enbridge to dredge the Pacific Ocean. And for those of you who blithely (and ignorantly) claim that Prince William Sound has been cleaned up by nature, you're wrong! The goopy leftovers of the Exxon Valdez oil spill have lingered on some of Alaska’s beaches for an entire generation, in some cases as fresh as they were just days after the spill. Just 13 of 32 animal populations and habitats are considered recovered or very likely recovered, while two are considered not recovering, Pacific herring and pigeon guillemots. Also, one pod of killer whales is not considered recovering, while another is. The fact is that oil spilled can last in the environment for generations. Edited July 17, 2014 by ReeferMadness Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted July 17, 2014 Report Posted July 17, 2014 No problem....many products are made from crude oil. No modern living without it. It's the gift that keeps on giving. Yes, it's still giving in the Kalamazoo River and Prince William Sound. And it will be for years to come. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted July 17, 2014 Report Posted July 17, 2014 Here's a bit of primer for those of you who are ill-informed about dilbit and not really wanting to know just how hard it is to clean up. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
overthere Posted July 17, 2014 Report Posted July 17, 2014 I fished for halibut in Prince William Sound last year and we enjoyed catching our limit in a very short time. There were also two salmon species running at the same time. Luckily we did not have to wait long at one of the two very busy processing plants. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
jacee Posted July 17, 2014 Report Posted July 17, 2014 (edited) Here's a bit of primer for those of you who are ill-informed about dilbit and not really wanting to know just how hard it is to clean up.Those who don'/t want to know won't click a link. Bottom line: ... the average cleanup cost of every crude oil spill from the past 10 years was $2,000 per barrel. The Marshall spill [dilbit[ has cost upwards of $29,000 per barrel. But dilbit producers don't care: The oil industry pays an 8-cent-per-barrel tax on crude oil produced and imported to the U.S. The tax goes into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, ... five months after the Marshall spill, the IRS ruled to exempt dilbit and synthetic crude from paying this tax. ... "at the request of a company whose identity was kept secret." . Edited July 17, 2014 by jacee Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 17, 2014 Report Posted July 17, 2014 Those who don'/t want to know won't click a link. Bottom line: ... the average cleanup cost of every crude oil spill from the past 10 years was $2,000 per barrel. The Marshall spill [dilbit[ has cost upwards of $29,000 per barrel. Don't care...oil/bitumen production and distribution are more important than preventing oil spills. Fact. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.