Northern Gateway Pipeline Approved

[waldo]

No Just makes me wonder when I hear about how green BC is and I remember Victoria and Halifax were still pumping it straight into the oceans. So is victoria still doing it?

extracts from prior related posts:

notwithstanding scientific debates over the effects of Victoria's sewage outfall, the city's plan (with provincial/federal engagement) for sewage treatment continues toward completion/deployment...

that scientific debate I referred to comes from several sources; one no less than Environment Canada that sets shellfish closure zones, acceptable particle levels, etc., in relation to the Victoria outfall (1 km out, 65 km deep). Of course monitoring presumed upon such things as the efficacy of ocean water dilution, currents/tides, etc.. In any case, as I highlighted, Victoria's new sewage treatment plan/deployment is being worked on and is expected to cost about $1 Billion when completed (with 3 levels of government funding)... that's a solution in the making.

that "indifference" you speak of was principally government in action... with a part of that shaped by regulation, itself driven by (other) government monitoring/review/analysis that deemed the dumping acceptable in terms of dilution rates, particle levels, shellfish closure zones, etc.. You have absolutely no grounds to suggest the collective BC environmental movement was "indifferent" to the dumping practice (again, 1 km out, 65 km deep). After a long concentrated protest its that very collective BC environmental movement that has finally brought forward a $1 Billion sewage treatment plan/deployment.

[On Guard for Thee]

^ Racist Comment.

Exactly what scenario are you imagining in order for a 'possible' oil spill in Kitimat to be so bad that it 'wrecks' the coastline near Stanley Park? This sounds as ridiculous as the idiots that think Fukushima has poisoned the entire Pacific Ocean.

Oh look, another idiot that doesn't understand the meaning of the word manifesto.

You can look it up in your Mirriam Webster and avoid sounding idiotic.

[monty16]

^ Racist Comment.

Well, maybe they're not as environmentally conscious as I credited them for being. Maybe one aboriginal has sold out in the past? Do you have any particular case in mind?

Or was I right all along?

[-1=e^ipi]

Well, maybe they're not as environmentally conscious as I credited them for being. Maybe one aboriginal has sold out in the past? Do you have any particular case in mind?

Saying 1 race is more or less environmentally conscious than another race is a racist statement.

[hitops]

oh snap! Not another guy touting his own prowess, while implying/stating someone he doesn't agree with... has no education chops, can't read scientific literature and simply accepts whatever "climate change hype" comes down! Well done... and thanks for lending your esteemed knowledge/capability to the board.

and... we have another denier attacking the IPCC - go figure.

I'm not saying it's your fault, maybe you parents just didn't give you the opportunity or something. Or maybe....you're just lazy and it's easier and more comfortable to believe 'the consensus' than learn academic scientific language. My guess is a combination of the two. I read and discuss scientific papers at least several times per week, part of the job. All the same crap that happens in my field wrt that, happens in other areas of science as well. None of us are immune. Difference is only on particularly branch of science at this time is suggesting the imposition of catastrophic de-industrialization measures.

The data is lacking, period. There is an IPCC prediction about a given future temperature rise using what they believe are the relevant factors. Problem is, if you take their exact same model and go back 50 years and apply it, adjusting the variables for that time.....it's a massive failure in predicting what actually happened since then. That's the only real world test we have available, since randomized trials are obviously not possible.

The vast majority of climate science is modeling, rather than real hard research.

Edited June 20, 2014 by hitops

[WestCoastRunner]

Exactly what scenario are you imagining in order for a 'possible' oil spill in Kitimat to be so bad that it 'wrecks' the coastline near Stanley Park? This sounds as ridiculous as the idiots that think Fukushima has poisoned the entire Pacific Ocean.

Do you even get this idea of transporting bitumen from Alberta to Asia? Have you studied the route? Until you do, don't even weigh in on this conversation.

[WestCoastRunner]

Is Victoria still pumping sewage straight into the ocean?

Aren't you the one who suggested women think with their vagina's? Given that, you deserve no educated response from educated women who think from more than their vagina's.

[Keepitsimple]

Does anyone live in or near Kitimat - or knows the area well. If so, is this excerpt from a recent article generally accurate - lots of tankers currently using the channel, the width of the channel, etc.? It'd be nice to verify some reports with first-hand knowledge.

Remember, hundreds of tanker and cargo ships have been going up down the narrow channel that serves Kitimat for years and they've been doing so without running into each other. At its narrowest, that channel is 1,400 metres wide. Meanwhile, oil tankers have been going in and out of Vancouver's Burrard inlet which, at its narrowest, is 150 metres wide.

[eyeball]

Yes well, the tankers have to wind their way through narrower passages around Gil Island to reach the wide open spaces of Douglas Channel. Gil Island is the big island missing from the cartoon that proponents of Northern Gateway uses to soothe concerns about narrow winding passages and tankers that are longer than the passages they'll be using. Burrard Inlet is straight without any bends.

I'm reminded of the cartoons the same suspects were wowed with by the Pentagon when drumming up support for the 2nd invasion of Iraq.

Edited June 21, 2014 by eyeball

[kimmy]

there seem to be some native groups already lined up... as signatories to the development... I don't believe they had to "costume up"! Of course, there are also native groups against the development - it's a shame you appear so jaded as to not consider any of their concerns as genuine.

It's hard to be anything other than jaded when it comes to our first nations friends.

-k

[Keepitsimple]

Yes well, the tankers have to wind their way through narrower passages around Gil Island to reach the wide open spaces of Douglas Channel. Gil Island is the big island missing from the cartoon that proponents of Northern Gateway uses to soothe concerns about narrow winding passages and tankers that are longer than the passages they'll be using. Burrard Inlet is straight without any bends.

I'm reminded of the cartoons the same suspects were wowed with by the Pentagon when drumming up support for the 2nd invasion of Iraq.

Maps are always deceiving unless you know the scale - which I have not been able to find online......but Gil Island itself is pretty big at 231 square km - 26 km long and 4-8 km wide........so it's probable that the route's waterway is a mile or more wide. A winding route is not that challenging in miles-wide waterways - as seems to be a proven point by the thousands of tankers and cargo ships that use it every year. Do you have any facts that disprove that the narrowest part of the planned water route is about 1400 meters? Just asking.

[eyeball]

I have Nobletec - a navigation program.

[Keepitsimple]

I have Nobletec - a navigation program.

And what does Nobletec tell you about the width of the channel used for shipping around Gil Island. How wide is it? I'm just trying to get the facts - which seem to be hard to come by.

Edited June 21, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[jacee]

It's hard to be anything other than jaded when it comes to our first nations friends.

-k

Only if you are in denial about legal realities and the foundations of your country.

Indigenous Peoples have a right to negotiate protection of the environment that sustains them, AND to negotiate economic and other benefits from projects that affect their traditional lands.

.

[eyeball]

And what does Nobletec tell you about the width of the channel used for shipping around Gil Island. How wide is it? I'm just trying to get the facts - which seem to be hard to come by.

That the proponents of this route are still being misleading about stuff that anyone can verify by looking at a map.

It's a familiar pattern.

[Smallc]

Only if you are in denial about legal realities and the foundations of your country.

Indigenous Peoples have a right to negotiate protection of the environment that sustains them, AND to negotiate economic and other benefits from projects that affect their traditional lands.

.

Don't you mean our country?

[Argus]

And what does Nobletec tell you about the width of the channel used for shipping around Gil Island. How wide is it? I'm just trying to get the facts - which seem to be hard to come by.

From the looks of this it's at least a couple of miles or so wide.

http://www.kitimat.ca/EN/main/business/invest-in-kitimat/port-of-kitimat/statistics.html

Edited June 21, 2014 by Argus

[Keepitsimple]

From the looks of this it's at least a couple of miles or so wide.

http://www.kitimat.ca/EN/main/business/invest-in-kitimat/port-of-kitimat/statistics.html

Just one of the "facts". I'm sure there are valid arguments against the pipeline but let's keep trying to deal with facts, and not emotion.

[hitops]

Only if you are in denial about legal realities and the foundations of your country.

Indigenous Peoples have a right to negotiate protection of the environment that sustains them, AND to negotiate economic and other benefits from projects that affect their traditional lands.

.

The environment doesn't sustain them though, WE sustain them.

[WestCoastRunner]

We can come up with many facts against the pipeline, from the increase in tankers on a daily basis, to the size of the tankers, to the volume being shipped. Unless folks outside of BC understand our gravest concerns for this increase in volume that is being proposed, there is not much more we can do to prevent it. I am quite frankly tired of protecting our interests against interests outside of BC. In the end, the pipeline will be forced through our province, the tankers will ply their trade throughout our coastline. End of story.

[Smallc]

The thing is, everyone always has concerns about every project. If we listen to the NIMBYs, who still complain even after every precaution is taken, then nothing gets done.

[WestCoastRunner]

The thing is, everyone always has concerns about every project. If we listen to the NIMBYs, who still complain even after every precaution is taken, then nothing gets done.

Nothing will get done to protect the west coast. It's all about money

[Smallc]

That's completely untrue given the 209 requirements for approval.

[WestCoastRunner]

That's completely untrue given the 209 requirements for approval.

Well, you may be right on that. Let's hope those requirements won't be met, however, many of those requirements are easy to fulfill. 209 quickly dwindles down. I haven't read through the 209 requirements but my understanding is that many, many of them are miniscule.

[On Guard for Thee]

Nothing will get done to protect the west coast. It's all about money

Let's hope cooler heads prevail and if we go anywhere, we go "energy east".