Northern Gateway Pipeline Approved

[PIK]

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.

When it comes to trudeau ,yes a lot do. And I take your answer as a'' no it has not been fixed yet''.

[Keepitsimple]

Except the pipeline should be going east, if anywhere.

I noticed that you:

1) Lost the argument on the width of the Douglas Channel

2) Lost the argument on your "huge" increase in traffic

3) Lost the argument on pipeline vs. Rail safety

4) And now you're onto the West to East argument

It seems that as soon as a poster effectively counters your "drive by" comments, you simply ignore the facts and throw out another emotional eco talking point to change the subject.

[overthere]

"And just again have a look at a map, if you in fact know how to read them and look at the difference in the type of geography each covers. Let's see, across the prairies or over the mountains that are known to be prone to earthquakes, and into country that noone knows how a spill recovery team will get to. And then look at the water courses potentially impacted. It's not hard to figure out which is safer. And even easier. Eastbound a bunch of the pipe is already there."

West bound too: KInder Morgan has been running the Trans Mountain pipeline from AB to Burnaby for over half a century. That is in fact over the mountains, a whole bunch of them.

I'm not sure why Gateway ever went via Kitimat. Why not Prince Rupert? They have a good port, close to the open ocean, and there are two existing right of ways(road and rail). It is further but not that much further.

[Big Guy]

I think I can address the argument of pipeline oil leaks. It would cost more but that extra oil could be moved by greatly increasing the tanker rail traffic. Crude oil moves by rail at about 15 to 20 mph while oil in a pipeline travels at 4 to 5 mph. Any spill could be limited to a few tankers and the amount of oil moved could increase.

[waldo]

It seems that as soon as a poster effectively counters your "drive by" comments, you simply ignore the facts and throw out another emotional eco talking point to change the subject.

yes Simple... that's you and your repeatedly cut/pasted David Akin/SunNews article... "effectively countering" all those arguments/comments!!!

[Keepitsimple]

yes Simple... that's you and your repeatedly cut/pasted David Akin/SunNews article... "effectively countering" all those arguments/comments!!!

While much of what's being discussed is in fact in the David Akin article, it doesn't make it any less credible - as shown by the substance of the debate that is ongoing in this thread. If left to the devices of the NDP (insanity), Elizabeth May (insanity again) and to a somewhat lesser degree, the Liberals......one would have the distinct impression that there has been very little - if any shipping into Kitimat - and that tankers would be undertaking voyages in a tiny channel that winds perilously between numerous islands. It's important to counter these outlandish scare tactics with some basic facts - and I don't care who the source is, as long as the facts are generally accurate.

[On Guard for Thee]

No, TransCanada........there already is a TCPL......homework?

Really?

Oh yeah

What were you saying about homework?

I'm saying you should do some. I know a bit about TCPL, I used to fly patrol for them back in the mid 70's in Ont. It is they who are promoting Energy East (that would be now)

[On Guard for Thee]

I noticed that you:

1) Lost the argument on the width of the Douglas Channel

2) Lost the argument on your "huge" increase in traffic

3) Lost the argument on pipeline vs. Rail safety

4) And now you're onto the West to East argument

It seems that as soon as a poster effectively counters your "drive by" comments, you simply ignore the facts and throw out another emotional eco talking point to change the subject.

I know how wide the chanell is

1. I know how wide the chanell is

2. Since there is currently a moratorium on tanker traffic in the area I think the increase to approx 220/year could be considered huge. Or think of it this way, the pipe carries 550k barells/day and it all has to go somewhere

3. Not arguing about rail safety.

4. Correct

Well you got one right.

[Derek 2.0]

I'm saying you should do some. I know a bit about TCPL, I used to fly patrol for them back in the mid 70's in Ont. It is they who are promoting Energy East (that would be now)

Yet you suggested Energy East would be used for domestic consumption, even though environmental groups say different…….Appears a major discrepancy in your claimed knowledge.

None the less, TransCanada isn’t suggesting exports shouldn’t go West (or South)……

[On Guard for Thee]

Yet you suggested Energy East would be used for domestic consumption, even though environmental groups say different…….Appears a major discrepancy in your claimed knowledge.

None the less, TransCanada isn’t suggesting exports shouldn’t go West (or South)……

You are quoting enviro groups now? You can find out a bit more about it all here:

http://www.energyeastpipeline.com/benefits/the-benefits/

[Derek 2.0]

You are quoting enviro groups now? You can find out a bit more about it all here:

http://www.energyeastpipeline.com/benefits/the-benefits/

Certainly, are their concerns only valid with Northern Gateway (and Trans Mountain, Keystone xl etc) , but not Energy East?

Also, with your linked data, ones’ to assume that you take TransCanada’s proposal at face value, but call into question the proposal put forth by Enbridge……..In essence, one company can be trusted, but another not so much…….Environmental and First Nations concerns are valid with one proposal, but not the other......Tarsands oil shipped around the world from East coasts ports is ok, but tar sands oil shipped through West coast ports is a bad thing....etc etc

[hitops]

"And just again have a look at a map, if you in fact know how to read them and look at the difference in the type of geography each covers. Let's see, across the prairies or over the mountains that are known to be prone to earthquakes, and into country that noone knows how a spill recovery team will get to. And then look at the water courses potentially impacted. It's not hard to figure out which is safer. And even easier. Eastbound a bunch of the pipe is already there."

West bound too: KInder Morgan has been running the Trans Mountain pipeline from AB to Burnaby for over half a century. That is in fact over the mountains, a whole bunch of them.

I'm not sure why Gateway ever went via Kitimat. Why not Prince Rupert? They have a good port, close to the open ocean, and there are two existing right of ways(road and rail). It is further but not that much further.

You just answered your own question. On the one hand concerns over where a spill recovery team can go and earthquakes, and then in the same breath mentioning another line which goes over the same territory, evidently with 50 years of not being significant affected by those issues. Which is it?

The reason the gateway plan is to Kitimat, is because 12 years ago Kitimat was falling over themselves to advertise as the best route for gateway.

[hitops]

Certainly, are their concerns only valid with Northern Gateway (and Trans Mountain, Keystone xl etc) , but not Energy East?

Also, with your linked data, ones’ to assume that you take TransCanada’s proposal at face value, but call into question the proposal put forth by Enbridge……..In essence, one company can be trusted, but another not so much…….Environmental and First Nations concerns are valid with one proposal, but not the other......Tarsands oil shipped around the world from East coasts ports is ok, but tar sands oil shipped through West coast ports is a bad thing....etc etc

You and I both know the opposition has nothing to do with a proposed better route. It is simply a red herring because of the perception that gateway might happen. As soon as somebody switches the plan to going east, the opposition will immediately start up against that idea. It's not about how/where it goes, it's about stopping any kind of development of mineral mining of any kind. Resources extraction IS the problem, and therefore no plan will ever satisfy for those folks.

[On Guard for Thee]

Certainly, are their concerns only valid with Northern Gateway (and Trans Mountain, Keystone xl etc) , but not Energy East?

Also, with your linked data, ones’ to assume that you take TransCanada’s proposal at face value, but call into question the proposal put forth by Enbridge……..In essence, one company can be trusted, but another not so much…….Environmental and First Nations concerns are valid with one proposal, but not the other......Tarsands oil shipped around the world from East coasts ports is ok, but tar sands oil shipped through West coast ports is a bad thing....etc etc

Set aside which company you trust for a moment and just, again, look at a map and note the difference in the geograqhy. You wouldn't have to be an expert to figure out which is the easier, more accessible route. Now I'm sure you will have heard the term "ring of fire" which applies to the Pacific rim and understand what it means. There was a 3.2 just last week in my hometown. That small won't likely split a pipeline but how about a 6.2? Now let's get back to the company track records. How about Enbridges little horrorshow in Michigan on the Kalamazoo River. The pipe splits, alarms sound in their office's in YEG and nothing gets done for 18 hours and it was the state of Michigan utilities employee that finally had to call Enbridge when he visually saw the oil flowing. In the meantime Enbridge ignored the alarms thinking it must be an air bubble and so RAISED the pressure to try and clear it! Three years after the fact they were still dredging bitumen out of that river. Now if it took that long to get something hapenning in a leak near a town in Michigan, how well will they do if this thing opens up in the middle of the Great Bear Rainforest?

[Smallc]

Like I said, much better to spill it in the boreal forest, now applying for UNESCO certification.

[Derek 2.0]

Set aside which company you trust for a moment and just, again, look at a map and note the difference in the geograqhy.

So you’d rather oil exported, from terminals along the St Lawrence, through waters inundated with icebergs, then the ice free West coast?

You wouldn't have to be an expert to figure out which is the easier, more accessible route. Now I'm sure you will have heard the term "ring of fire" which applies to the Pacific rim and understand what it means. There was a 3.2 just last week in my hometown. That small won't likely split a pipeline but how about a 6.2?

Have these Earthquakes split the current Trans Mountain pipeline, a pipeline that's been in service since the 1950s?

Now let's get back to the company track records. How about Enbridges little horrorshow in Michigan on the Kalamazoo River. The pipe splits, alarms sound in their office's in YEG and nothing gets done for 18 hours and it was the state of Michigan utilities employee that finally had to call Enbridge when he visually saw the oil flowing. In the meantime Enbridge ignored the alarms thinking it must be an air bubble and so RAISED the pressure to try and clear it! Three years after the fact they were still dredging bitumen out of that river. Now if it took that long to get something hapenning in a leak near a town in Michigan, how well will they do if this thing opens up in the middle of the Great Bear Rainforest?

You want to talk about the companies?How about TransCanada's record?

Are you suggesting a leak in a West-East line wouldn't have a negative impact on aquifers? ~30% of Canadians rely on groundwater......

[Derek 2.0]

You and I both know the opposition has nothing to do with a proposed better route. It is simply a red herring because of the perception that gateway might happen. As soon as somebody switches the plan to going east, the opposition will immediately start up against that idea. It's not about how/where it goes, it's about stopping any kind of development of mineral mining of any kind. Resources extraction IS the problem, and therefore no plan will ever satisfy for those folks.

Exactly……

[On Guard for Thee]

That's quite catchy, that "you and I both know bit"

[On Guard for Thee]

So you’d rather oil exported, from terminals along the St Lawrence, through waters inundated with icebergs, then the ice free West coast?

Have these Earthquakes split the current Trans Mountain pipeline, a pipeline that's been in service since the 1950s?

You want to talk about the companies?How about TransCanada's record?

Are you suggesting a leak in a West-East line wouldn't have a negative impact on aquifers? ~30% of Canadians rely on groundwater......

And how timely, an 8.0 in Alaska today.

[hitops]

And how timely, an 8.0 in Alaska today.

Without any spills. Hmmmmmmm.....

[Derek 2.0]

And how timely, an 8.0 in Alaska today.

Did it wipe out the ~40 year old TAPS?

[On Guard for Thee]

Did it wipe out the ~40 year old TAPS?

Too far away of course. But I wouldn't doubt it coud have.

[On Guard for Thee]

Without any spills. Hmmmmmmm....

Nothing to spill where THIS one hapenned. Maps aren't your forte are they?

[Derek 2.0]

Too far away of course. But I wouldn't doubt it coud have.

Why would you say that? If you did your homework, you'd see that TAPS survived the 2002, 7.9 Denali quake….So you are now hoping for divine intervention to support your point?

[Derek 2.0]

Nothing to spill where THIS one hapenned. Maps aren't your forte are they?

Then why would you call this quake timely?