Source of fuel spill off Vancouver's coast confirmedEnvironmental | 206826 hits | Apr 10 8:59 am | Posted by: Hyack Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Who voted on this?
|
He said the spill �raises the question of what will happen if we see a dramatic increase in tanker traffic.�
And here it is just like clockwork.
He said the spill �raises the question of what will happen if we see a dramatic increase in tanker traffic.�
Absolutely correct.
The Port of Vancouver should be closed to everything except canoes.
Close the Port of Vancouver, completely. It makes things too icky for Kitsilano.
Or, maybe let's not not cut oversight and response capability if we are planning on ramping up tanker traffic?
Close the Port of Vancouver, completely. It makes things too icky for Kitsilano.
Or, maybe let's not not cut oversight and response capability if we are planning on ramping up tanker traffic?
No, no, too reasonable. Just meet any incident with shoulder shrugs, since they don't live here. Spread a little oil on their front lawn, as happened to the good folks in Burnaby, then maybe we'll hear a different tune.
Close the Port of Vancouver, completely. It makes things too icky for Kitsilano.
Or, maybe let's not not cut oversight and response capability if we are planning on ramping up tanker traffic?
Here's a question. Why should the Feds bother with any larger an oversight or response capability when, if what you say is true there isn't going to be any ramping up in traffic because:
Seems to me that the people screaming the loudest about coast guard base closures not being available for the supposed increased tanker traffic have shot themselves in the foot by lobbying for stopping any pipeline expansion.
Maybe the Fed's figure that if the pipelines are eventually built there'll be plenty of time to reintroduce the checks and balances needed to protect the coastline from increased tanker traffic or maybe they just don't give a shit because they're tired of the NIMBY's in this province derailing every new project.
Close the Port of Vancouver, completely. It makes things too icky for Kitsilano.
Or, maybe let's not not cut oversight and response capability if we are planning on ramping up tanker traffic?
Here's a question. Why should the Feds bother with any larger an oversight or response capability when, if what you say is true there isn't going to be any ramping up in traffic because:
Seems to me that the people screaming the loudest about coast guard base closures not being available for the supposed increased tanker traffic have shot themselves in the foot by lobbying for stopping any pipeline expansion.
Maybe the Fed's figure that if the pipelines are eventually built there'll be plenty of time to reintroduce the checks and balances needed to protect the coastline from increased tanker traffic or maybe they just don't give a shit because they're tired of the NIMBY's in this province derailing every new project.
Whether is gets to the coast by pipe or rail, it still needs to cross the water in a tanker ship. Waterways are the Federales responsibility.
Maybe the Fed's figure that if the pipelines are eventually built there'll be plenty of time to reintroduce the checks and balances needed to protect the coastline from increased tanker traffic or maybe they just don't give a shit because they're tired of the NIMBY's in this province derailing every new project.
I think you nailed it.