CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 18492
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:23 pm
 


Quote:
The federal government on Tuesday said it has completed another regulatory step in the process of developing the $4 billion Kitimat LNG natural gas export plant near Kitimat . The government approved a set of regulations allowing for the Haisla First Nation to develop the plant on its Bees Indian Reserve No.

6. Haisla Chief Councillor Ellis Ross says the project offers new economic opportunities his people are eager to embrace. The plant, backed by Apache Canada Ltd. and Chevron Canada Ltd., has a licence to export nine million tonnes of LNG per year .

The plant is one of three proposed LNG export facilities at Kitimat, which would be fed by gas pipelines from northeast B.C. for export to Asian and other markets.


http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Ki ... story.html

Interesting - BC won't let oil tankers in because they might spill, but ships carrying equivalent of small nuclear bombs - no problem!

I guess it's okay to wipe it off the face of the earth instead of just pollute it... :lol:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23858
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:31 pm
 


bootlegga wrote:
Quote:
The federal government on Tuesday said it has completed another regulatory step in the process of developing the $4 billion Kitimat LNG natural gas export plant near Kitimat . The government approved a set of regulations allowing for the Haisla First Nation to develop the plant on its Bees Indian Reserve No.

6. Haisla Chief Councillor Ellis Ross says the project offers new economic opportunities his people are eager to embrace. The plant, backed by Apache Canada Ltd. and Chevron Canada Ltd., has a licence to export nine million tonnes of LNG per year .

The plant is one of three proposed LNG export facilities at Kitimat, which would be fed by gas pipelines from northeast B.C. for export to Asian and other markets.


http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Ki ... story.html

Interesting - BC won't let oil tankers in because they might spill, but ships carrying equivalent of small nuclear bombs - no problem!

I guess it's okay to wipe it off the face of the earth instead of just pollute it... :lol:


The two groups as cited giving permissives were not reps for BC.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8058
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:41 pm
 


Exactly.

The econuts don't seem to be to concerned about the fate of Kitimat if something goes wrong with the LNG which leads me to believe their motives are much less alturustic than they'd like us to believe.

But, if there is a LNG explosion in Kitimat it'll be made 10 times worse if the explosion sight is situated next to the Bitumen shipping terminal instead of just flattening Kitimat it'll likely release thousands of barrels of bitumen into the Douglas Channel.

So, just because they have a LNG terminal in Kitimat doesn't mean it eliminates the dangers of a spill but actually increases them. So given the increased damage possibilities maybe they should find a new port to ship the bitument from if they want the people of BC to consider the Northern Gateway Pipeline.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 17991
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:44 pm
 


Freakinoldguy wrote:
Exactly.

The econuts don't seem to be to concerned about the fate of Kitimat if something goes wrong with the LNG which leads me to believe their motives are much less alturustic than they'd like us to believe.

But, if there is a LNG explosion in Kitimat it'll be made 10 times worse if the explosion sight is situated next to the Bitumen shipping terminal instead of just flattening Kitimat it'll likely release thousands of barrels of bitumen into the Douglas Channel.

So, just because they have a LNG terminal in Kitimat doesn't mean it eliminates the dangers of a spill but actually increases them. So given the increased damage possibilities maybe they should find a new port to ship the bitument from if they want the people of BC to consider the Northern Gateway Pipeline.


So, dilbit pipeline, no problem is what you're saying? Hey--we're agreed!


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23858
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:17 pm
 


Freakinoldguy wrote:
Exactly.

The econuts don't seem to be to concerned about the fate of Kitimat if something goes wrong with the LNG which leads me to believe their motives are much less alturustic than they'd like us to believe.

But, if there is a LNG explosion in Kitimat it'll be made 10 times worse if the explosion sight is situated next to the Bitumen shipping terminal instead of just flattening Kitimat it'll likely release thousands of barrels of bitumen into the Douglas Channel.

So, just because they have a LNG terminal in Kitimat doesn't mean it eliminates the dangers of a spill but actually increases them. So given the increased damage possibilities maybe they should find a new port to ship the bitument from if they want the people of BC to consider the Northern Gateway Pipeline.



Well, being a bit of an eco-nut here, I'll admit this project is rather lower on the radar for one main reason for me. Yes, an LNG spill would be devastating if an explosion were to occur, but frankly, a grounding and resulting leak without an explosion would have a far lesser impact than a similar accident on a tanker.

That being said, I'm opposed to tanker traffic period through the Douglas Channel. It is simply an ungood route for shipping of that size. And as I indicated, an agreement between a native group and the Feds is hardly representative of BC. WHat it does reveal is that the Stewards of the Environment can be bought for the right price.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8058
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:58 pm
 


Zipperfish wrote:
Freakinoldguy wrote:
Exactly.

The econuts don't seem to be to concerned about the fate of Kitimat if something goes wrong with the LNG which leads me to believe their motives are much less alturustic than they'd like us to believe.

But, if there is a LNG explosion in Kitimat it'll be made 10 times worse if the explosion sight is situated next to the Bitumen shipping terminal instead of just flattening Kitimat it'll likely release thousands of barrels of bitumen into the Douglas Channel.

So, just because they have a LNG terminal in Kitimat doesn't mean it eliminates the dangers of a spill but actually increases them. So given the increased damage possibilities maybe they should find a new port to ship the bitument from if they want the people of BC to consider the Northern Gateway Pipeline.


So, dilbit pipeline, no problem is what you're saying? Hey--we're agreed!


As I've stated numerous times on here before. I'm not anti pipeline I'm anti Enbridge, and anti Douglas Channel exit route.

Find a new company with a better safety and cleanup record than Enbridge who'll ship it out of a port that isn't 60 klicks inland and pay the Province proper compensation and then they may be onto something.

But even if they stop the pipeline I'm pretty sure that Enbridge is going to get their oil to Kitimat one way or another and more than likely that way will be by rail which, besides already being an in place delivery system is in IMO is a bigger a danger to the environment than the pipeline, just not quite as newsworthy.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8058
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:00 pm
 


Gunnair wrote:
Freakinoldguy wrote:
Exactly.

The econuts don't seem to be to concerned about the fate of Kitimat if something goes wrong with the LNG which leads me to believe their motives are much less alturustic than they'd like us to believe.

But, if there is a LNG explosion in Kitimat it'll be made 10 times worse if the explosion sight is situated next to the Bitumen shipping terminal instead of just flattening Kitimat it'll likely release thousands of barrels of bitumen into the Douglas Channel.

So, just because they have a LNG terminal in Kitimat doesn't mean it eliminates the dangers of a spill but actually increases them. So given the increased damage possibilities maybe they should find a new port to ship the bitument from if they want the people of BC to consider the Northern Gateway Pipeline.



Well, being a bit of an eco-nut here, I'll admit this project is rather lower on the radar for one main reason for me. Yes, an LNG spill would be devastating if an explosion were to occur, but frankly, a grounding and resulting leak without an explosion would have a far lesser impact than a similar accident on a tanker.

That being said, I'm opposed to tanker traffic period through the Douglas Channel. It is simply an ungood route for shipping of that size. And as I indicated, an agreement between a native group and the Feds is hardly representative of BC. WHat it does reveal is that the Stewards of the Environment can be bought for the right price.



Sorry Boss but until I catch you out spiking trees and dating a Raging Granny I'm not going to consider you a certified Econut. :D


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23858
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:11 pm
 


Freakinoldguy wrote:
Gunnair wrote:
Freakinoldguy wrote:
Exactly.

The econuts don't seem to be to concerned about the fate of Kitimat if something goes wrong with the LNG which leads me to believe their motives are much less alturustic than they'd like us to believe.

But, if there is a LNG explosion in Kitimat it'll be made 10 times worse if the explosion sight is situated next to the Bitumen shipping terminal instead of just flattening Kitimat it'll likely release thousands of barrels of bitumen into the Douglas Channel.

So, just because they have a LNG terminal in Kitimat doesn't mean it eliminates the dangers of a spill but actually increases them. So given the increased damage possibilities maybe they should find a new port to ship the bitument from if they want the people of BC to consider the Northern Gateway Pipeline.



Well, being a bit of an eco-nut here, I'll admit this project is rather lower on the radar for one main reason for me. Yes, an LNG spill would be devastating if an explosion were to occur, but frankly, a grounding and resulting leak without an explosion would have a far lesser impact than a similar accident on a tanker.

That being said, I'm opposed to tanker traffic period through the Douglas Channel. It is simply an ungood route for shipping of that size. And as I indicated, an agreement between a native group and the Feds is hardly representative of BC. WHat it does reveal is that the Stewards of the Environment can be bought for the right price.


Sorry Boss but until I catch you out spiking trees and dating a Raging Granny I'm not going to consider you a certified Econut. :D


I have hugged trees and giggled at Raging Grannies... would that count?


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.