Northern Gateway Pipeline Canned by Trudeau

[waldo]

After all, in 60+ years of tanker traffic from the 60+ years that this pipeline has been running there have been hundreds thousands many a lot of countless who can keep track a multitude zero tanker spills.

Shipping oil by tanker is a brand new idea so Kinder Morgan is going to have to figure this out, how to get oil from A to B safely. The Americans have done a bit of it, with around 22 Billion gallons of oil transiting nearby Puget Sound per year. Maybe they would have some ideas.

nice! Is this you providing accurate perspective? Try this: per the formal Kinder Morgan proposed expansion, intent is to go from shipping 350,000 bbls/day to 890,000 bbls/day; a 2.5 times increase and, accordingly increase tanker traffic from the existing ~60/year to ~410/year. The proposal also states an intent not to increase ship size beyond the present "Aframax class tanker (120,000 dwt)".

that's right... 410 tankers (at least) moving on through Burrard Inlet - what could possibly go wrong! But don't you find it somewhat telling that Kinder Morgan refuses to provide any semblance of detailed process/plan to the cities of the greater Vancouver area... to the National Energy Board... in just how it presumes to put in place the so-called "world leading" environmental response practices to manage any spills/tanker leaks?

but hey now! Perhaps KM will shift once again and move away from expansion centered around the Burnaby/Westridge terminus... if Obama is gone and replaced by the hair-apparent Trump... clearly, a direction toward the existing Washington State ports should be green-lighted and any concerns about another Canada-U.S. border crossing will get "Trumped"!

[ReeferMadness]

After all, in 60+ years of tanker traffic from the 60+ years that this pipeline has been running there have been hundreds thousands many a lot of countless who can keep track a multitude zero tanker spills.

Shipping oil by tanker is a brand new idea so Kinder Morgan is going to have to figure this out, how to get oil from A to B safely. The Americans have done a bit of it, with around 22 Billion gallons of oil transiting nearby Puget Sound per year. Maybe they would have some ideas.

Substance addiction is a tragic thing. Addiction to oil seems to have the effect of impairing people's memories.

Persistent oil poisoning, and a cascade of ecological effects, continue. There's not much we can do now for Prince William Sound, short of protecting it from more harm. But we can keep from repeating our mistakes elsewhere. This is, after all, why we pay attention to history.

Unfortunately, we still haven't learned the biggest lesson of all from the Exxon Valdez oil spill: The only real solution is to stop using so much oil.

The west coast of Canada is a gem. And it's a real shame that it's being risked for short term profits for multinational corporations operating in Alberta.

[ReeferMadness]

that's right... 410 tankers (at least) moving on through Burrard Inlet - what could possibly go wrong! But don't you find it somewhat telling that Kinder Morgan refuses to provide any semblance of detailed process/plan to the cities of the greater Vancouver area... to the National Energy Board... in just how it presumes to put in place the so-called "world leading" environmental response practices to manage any spills/tanker leaks?

I was listening to someone from the Dogwood Initiative on the radio and he said that Harper-appointed NEB refused to allow any questions on the characteristics of dilbit in water. I guess those of us who inhabit this area aren't supposed to question the the unfettered rights of corporations to put the BC waters at risk.

[TimG]

The west coast of Canada is a gem. And it's a real shame that it's being risked for short term profits for multinational corporations operating in Alberta.

You are assuming the people claiming 'persistent ecological effects' from Exxon Valdez have no vested interest in coming to that conclusion. Why should people who's jobs depend on "problems" that need "monitoring" have an incentive to declare an area "problem free"?

[The_Squid]

You are assuming the people claiming 'persistent ecological effects' from Exxon Valdez have no vested interest in coming to that conclusion. Why should people who's jobs depend on "problems" that need "monitoring" have an incentive to declare an area "problem free"?

That's tinfoil hat kind of conspiracy nonsense.

Government agencies, universities, NGOs have studied the area and the findings have been peer reviewed and published.

Who do you think could give us better information on these kinds of impacts then?

[TimG]

Government agencies, universities, NGOs have studied the area and the findings have been peer reviewed and published.

Peer review and publication does not do anything to protect against a biased selection of data and an exaggeration of significance.

Who do you think could give us better information on these kinds of impacts then?

No one really. Everyone has an agenda and can't really be trusted. This is not a big deal with information that comes from corporations because people automatically understand that a company has an interest in presenting information that benefits them and take that into account.

The problem comes up because people assume that NGOs are unbiased when nothing could be further from the truth. NGOs are just corporations who make money by convincing people their cause is important. This means anything produced by an NGO is as biased as anything produced by an oil company and should not be treated as more credible.

Government scientists are better but they still depend on their bosses believing that their projects need to be funded. This creates an incentive to find "problems" that need funding even when they don't really exist.

I also suggest you learn to understand the difference between 'conspiracy' and 'acting in self-interest'. I am simply pointing out that everyone has a self-interest and they will produce information that promotes their self interest. I am not alleging collusion or groups of people working to deceive. Just that people have an uncanny ability to twist facts to suit their self interest no matter who they are.

Edited January 13, 2016 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

That's tinfoil hat kind of conspiracy nonsense.

Of course it is but we're wasting our time here. If you read up, you'll see Tim earlier claimed that we couldn't be sure that there would be any serious long term consequences from a major spill of dilbit in the Strait of Georgia because there are no long term studies. If you look at his latest post, it's clear that he will just claim that the studies are a result of bias. The only thing that might change his mind is if the oil companies themselves admitted that there is no way to effectively clean up an oil spill that will work on a human time scale. There's no chance that will happen.

Clearly he's so wedded to his beliefs that nothing will dent them.

[overthere]

There's not much we can do now for Prince William Sound, short of protecting it from more harm.

Luckily it is actually teeming with fish. Halibut(up to 200 pounds) , several salmon runs, rock cod, and many others. Of course, the major fishing is done just outside PWS, in the Gulf of Alaska where there is one of the largest commercial fisheries in the world. Valdez is the base for a considerable and active commercial fishery. There is also a big fish hatchery there, right next to the tanker depot.

I can also assure you that the fiercely independent people in the area don't want you to 'do' anything, other than perhaps keep that piehole shut unless speaking the truth..

And yes I said teeming.

[TimG]

Clearly he's so wedded to his beliefs that nothing will dent them.

A lot of psychological projection going on here. That phrase describes you perfectly.

I explained how self-interest biases all research. You choose to ignore that reality because you desperately want excuses to justify your pre-determined opinion that the pipelines should be blocked. This is a position that is driven by your self-interest since you think that blocking pipelines has no direct impact on you or your employment prospects.

You are fooling yourself though because you don't understand how much resource extraction drives the wealth that Canada has. If project after project is blocked by people like you then the resource industry will die and the Canadian economy will wither and governments will be forced to cut social programs as deficits spiral out of control.

Edited January 13, 2016 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

A lot of psychological projection going on here. That phrase describes you perfectly.

You've as much as admitted that you're never going to admit the damage that oil spills do, no matter what evidence is presented. So, give it up.

When I have views, I have science to back me up. You offer nothing but your deeply held religious beliefs.

I explained how self-interest biases all research. You choose to ignore that reality because you desperately want excuses to justify your pre-determined opinion that the pipelines should be blocked. This is a position that is driven by your self-interest since you think that blocking pipelines has no direct impact on you or your employment prospects. You fooling yourself though because you don't understand how much resource extraction drive the wealth that Canada has.

Everyone in this country with an RRSP or an interest in a pension plan (including the CPP) has an interest in this. It's just some of us are wise enough to see that the oil boom and the accompanying gold rush mentality has been more a curse than a blessing. It's pushed the dollar on a roller coaster ride that first priced manufacturing out of competitiveness in central Canada and now is causing food to spike across the country. Any economist can tell you that basing your fortune on a single volatile commodity is just plain idiotic but it seems some people can't figure that out. Not the least of which is Mr Economics Himself, his Lordship Harper.

And I'm still waiting for you to tell me who is going to dredge the Strait of Georgia when the tanker goes down.

[TimG]

You've as much as admitted that you're never going to admit the damage that oil spills do, no matter what evidence is presented.

What I said is the damage caused by oil spills can be managed. I did not say they did not damage. You are one insisting that every oil spill is a catastrophe and the world will end. You are the one making extraordinary claims.

When I have views, I have science to back me up. You offer nothing but your deeply held religious beliefs.

The premise that the environment prior to humans is a pristine state that must be preserved at all costs is a deeply held religious belief that you have. I am a pragmatist.

Everyone in this country with an RRSP or an interest in a pension plan (including the CPP) has an interest in this. It's just some of us are wise enough to see that the oil boom and the accompanying gold rush mentality has been more a curse than a blessing.

The manufacturing sector is a bigger portion of our GDP than the resource sector. But it is the resource sector that produces goods that others want to buy and it is essential to provide the cash that pays for all the stuff we would like to import. No one really wants or needs manufacturing goods produced by Canada because so many other countries can do the same thing for cheaper. This means our manufacturing is limited to high value niches that don't add up to much money or production for domestic consumption which does not help our trade balance.

No amount of wishful thinking is going to create another sector that will give Canada the same comparative advantage in world trade. Without resource exports dollar will continue to drop which makes imports even more expensive and puts pressure on government budgets and inflation since we need to import so much to maintain our standard of living. We cannot devalue ourselves to prosperity.

And I'm still waiting for you to tell me who is going to dredge the Strait of Georgia when the tanker goes down.

I am still waiting for evidence that the harm caused by leaving the dilbit on the seafloor is large enough to bother with dredging. Edited January 14, 2016 by TimG

[The_Squid]

No one really. Everyone has an agenda and can't really be trusted. This is not a big deal with information that comes from corporations because people automatically understand that a company has an interest in presenting information that benefits them and take that into account.

No one is able to study an issue and give us reliable conclusions. That is the most bizarre thing I've ever heard. It's an overly cynical view of the world. And yes, it is tinfoil hat nonsense to say that we can't study anything because everyone is biased in some way. That's ridiculous.

Edited January 14, 2016 by The_Squid

[TimG]

And yes, it is tinfoil hat nonsense to say that we can't study anything because everyone is biased in some way.

But I did not say that. I said everyone is biased and that needs to be taken in to account. If an NGO says there are ongoing issues with the Exxon Valdez spill that cannot be treated as gospel. We have to look carefully at the results to determine whether these issues are really serious or whether they are being exaggerated. We also need to look at other data such as the apparent abundance of fish stocks which suggests the ecosystem has recovered.

We have an adversarial system in our courts where the accused puts forward the best argument for acquittal and the prosecutor puts the best argument for conviction. Neither side claims objectivity. A jury listens to both sides and makes a decision based on the evidence presented. We need to move to the same system for scientific studies for policy questions where we stop pretending that scientists are objective and pay for different scientists to look at the data with different biases.

Edited January 14, 2016 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

Luckily it is actually teeming with fish. Halibut(up to 200 pounds) , several salmon runs, rock cod, and many others. Of course, the major fishing is done just outside PWS, in the Gulf of Alaska where there is one of the largest commercial fisheries in the world. Valdez is the base for a considerable and active commercial fishery. There is also a big fish hatchery there, right next to the tanker depot

So you think that fishing for species like halibut and salmon that spend most of their lives in deep water proves anything? Like Tim, you only see what you've already decided is the truth.

On the beaches, you can still dig up pools of oil to this day.

And from the CNN article.

The sound's coastal ecosystem is permanently damaged. Thousands of gallons of Exxon Valdez oil still pollute the beaches; this oil is still toxic and still hurting the ecosystem near the shore.

The government considers, as of 2010, only 13 of the 32 monitored wildlife populations, habitats and resource services that were injured in the spill as fully "recovered" or "very likely recovered." Some are still listed today as "not recovering." This includes a pod of orcas, which lost 15 of its 22 members after the spill, and has not produced a calf since. Given only one older female is left, scientists appear certain that this unique pod of orcas will go extinct -- it's just a matter of time. The government conclusion is that "there appears to be no hope for recovery."

But what the hell do you care about a pod of orcas disappearing. As long as you can fly in and get your halibut, life's good, right?

I can also assure you that the fiercely independent people in the area don't want you to 'do' anything, other than perhaps keep that piehole shut unless speaking the truth..

Who are you to speak for them?

[The_Squid]

To think that a major oil spill is anything other than an environmental disaster is sheer lunacy....

[TimG]

But what the hell do you care about a pod of orcas disappearing. As long as you can fly in and get your halibut, life's good, right?

Why should we care about one pod of orcas? There are plenty of other pods around. Your 'nothing can ever change' religion is a belief - not an objective truth.

[ReeferMadness]

Why should we care about one pod of orcas? There are plenty of other pods around. Your 'nothing can ever change' religion is a belief - not an objective truth.

Sure. Get rid of the orcas. Why should you care? The important thing is that your energy stocks go up and gas is cheap for your SUV. Just close your mind and focus on your iphone. That's a good consumer.

[The_Squid]

Why should we care about a keystone predator? LOL

Wow... not exactly an ecologist, is he???

[TimG]

Sure. Get rid of the orcas. Why should you care?

ONE pod of orcas. Yeesh. That is the problem with you. You have absolutely no sense of perspective. Losing ONE pod of orcas is NOT the end of the world. It certainly is not a problem large enough to justify shutting down an industry. It is stuff like this that shows that science has nothing to do with your beliefs. It is all about your eco-religion that fetishisizes the random environment that happened to immediately precede humans. Edited January 14, 2016 by TimG

[The_Squid]

Someone needs to do some book-learnin' about orcas....

AT1 Transients were one of the most frequently encountered groups and, in the 1980s, were sighted year-round in Prince William Sound. The AT1 group was made up of at least 22 whales, but has been reduced by more than half since the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. Several confirmed deaths of AT1 killer whales have been recorded since the 1990s, while other missing animals are presumed dead.9 In June 2004, we designated the AT1 group of transient killer whales as a depleted stock under the MMPA. Scientists estimate there are only 7 killer whales remaining in this group.

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/whales/killer-whale.html

Quit while you're behind TimG... you sound foolish when you attempt to justify oil spills and make them not seem so bad... You sound like someone who admires all the wildlife that is attracted to a landfill. "See?? Garbage is great..... it attracts birds and bears!! A healthy ecosystem!"

[ReeferMadness]

ONE pod of orcas. Yeesh. That is the problem with you. You have absolutely no sense of perspective. Losing ONE pod of orcas is NOT the end of the world. It certainly is not a problem large enough to justify shutting down an industry. It is stuff like this that shows that science has nothing to do with your beliefs. It is all about your eco-religion that fetishisizes the random environment that happened to immediately precede humans.

Wait a minute. Are you SURE that there was a pod of orcas up there? Maybe it was just invented. You can't trust those scientists, you know. They're all biased.

Orcas are apex predators. When apex predators die off, that's not a good sign for the ecosystem. And pods up and down the coast have had issues maintaining their numbers for decades. Tankers dumping toxic crude in the water is just one of the many ways that we're polluting the ocean.

[TimG]

Quit while you're behind TimG... you sound foolish when you attempt to justify oil spills and make them not seem so bad.

Sorry, simply repeating the tenets of your religion does not make it rational. My argument is from a rational perspective there is nothing special about ONE pod of orcas when many other pods are fine. I am sure many pods have disappeared on their own in the past without any help from humans because that is how nature works. Edited January 14, 2016 by TimG

[Argus]

To think that a major oil spill is anything other than an environmental disaster is sheer lunacy....

To think doing away with the oil and gas industry is anything other than economic disaster is sheer idiocy.

[The_Squid]

To think doing away with the oil and gas industry is anything other than economic disaster is sheer idiocy.

Where have I said that?

[jacee]

b-c-s-failure-consult-first-nations-sets-enbridge-northern-gateway-pipeline-back-square-one

B.C. granted Ottawa authority over the projects environmental review in a 2010 equivalency agreement. That agreement, however, did not release the province from the legal duty to consult First Nations, the B.C. Supreme Court found.

The duty of the provincial Crown to consult, and to accommodate Aboriginal rights cannot be passed off on the NEB or the company.

This is a very significant ruling that affects not just pipelines but all development on traditional Indigenous lands ... including a new disputed housing development in Caledonia, Ontario, where ...

...the Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs wants the developer and Six Nations to hash out the issues.

http://m.thespec.com/news-story/6230665-native-claims-on-caledonia-housing-land-heat-up

An injunction just won't suffice.

.

Edited January 17, 2016 by jacee