[Gunnair]

Bodah Bodah:

BC already has a few pipelines in place, they also have tankers coming in as well. But suddenly this new one is bad and will be an environmental disaster.

Possibly because of the location but don't let the lack of facts stop you from sniping here.

[Gunnair]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

And here's the latest in the war between Victoria and Edmonton

$1:

Pipeline fuels clash between B.C., Alberta
Expert says Clark should be targeting Enbridge

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/busine ... 59386.html

No offense intended but it's kind of like the monkey and the organ grinder thing. Why is Enbridge getting a pass while the Provinces engage in a pissing contest. If anyone should be paying BC for the use of our land, ports and risk it should be Enbridge not the Province of Alberta.

But like I said before, I can see the BC Liberals signing off on the pipeline before the next election just to screw over Adrian Dix and the NDP who will more than likely form the next government.

I doubt the BC liberals are that desperate to commit political suicide.

[Gunnair]

Thanos Thanos:

That's because oilsands oil is evil.

The whole thing is a waste of time to discuss anyway. Once TransCanada and Nebraska get their routing issues sorted out, Keystone'll be a go no matter who is President. Gateway won't be needed at all.

Not sure which annoys me more. The enviro-Nazis who are going to behave like killing Gateway is their Biggest. Victory. EVER. Or twats like Ezra Levant who was writing crap the other day about how being against the pipeline meant you hated Canada. Battle of wits between two equally unarmed opponents. Too bad they didn't all shoot each other in the head.

Yeah, like everyone opposing Northern Gareway is an enviro nazi. Lots of very reasonable people oppose the project for very real issues.

Speaking of Ezra-like twats, try stop posting like one in occasion.

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Political posturing. Nothing more.

Enbridge wants to build a pipe across BC. If there is a spill, Enbridge pays for the cleanup, just like it always does. Not BC. Alberta sells oilsands to companies and collect royalties on it, and those companies pay Enbridge (or another company) to ship the oil in their pipe to markets. The Government of Alberta has little to do with things after the first sale, why should it pass royalties to BC for something 2 companies are doing?

Speaking of which, how much in royalties does BC pay for the natural gas pipelines up north, or the trucks full of timber that roll across our highways? Did they ever give Alberta one dime when Bill Bennet approved a hydro dam that caused a severe water shortage in southern Alberta?

No.

So, STFU and let's talk about how we are going to get products to market in a responsible manner, instead of whining about fairness when the rules are already being followed.

Nice try, but no.

The damage caused by a significant oil spill--say a tanker rupture like the Exxon Valdez, lasts a long time. Sure they can pay to clean it up, but they get maybe 10 or 20% of the oil in ideal circumstances. A good chunk evaporates, but given that this is heavy oil (oil sands bitumen) it would be pretty sticky and a good chunk would probably sink too. If it happened in the Kitimat Arm, especially in winter, it would not be an exaggeration to say that i would be an ecological catastrophe. Fish, shellfish, marine mammals, migratory birds, birds of prey, wildlife, indigenous populations, towns--it's got it all.

It's all well and good to talk about getting the oil to market when Alberta is collecting the royalties and BC is assuming the risk.

And Enbridge is already under fire for what was deemed a poor response to a large oil spill to a Michigan river. Also, governments are downsizing, and that includes cutting back on environment, so the prepardness and response capability are degraded.

There are already tankers plying the west coast, but they don't come through the Hecate Strait, which, maritmers tell me, is a treacherous little slip of water. They traverse from Alaska, west of the Haida Gwaii, and head to Washington or California refineries. Small tankers come into Vacouver Harbour infrequently, and have for a donkey's age.

And the oil goes to China, with few environmental protection laws, so there's that.

None of these issues are insurmountable, but as it stands, from my viewpoint anyways, it doesn't look good.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Enbridge wants to build a pipe across BC. If there is a spill, Enbridge pays for the cleanup, just like it always does.

Enbridge is limited to $1.3 billion liability by law. As spill on the coast could easily cost 10 times that. Albertans seem to focuso on the pipeline, but as you can see from Gunnair's comments, the far bigger worry is the ocean.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Speaking of which, how much in royalties does BC pay for the trucks full of timber that roll across our highways?

Next time you have a major timber spill, you be sure to call us to help clean it up, y'hear? And does Alberta not want that wood to use? The oil that Enbridge would ship across BC would add not one cent to our economic activity, it's all bound for Asia.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

So, STFU and let's talk about how we are going to get products to market in a responsible manner, instead of whining about fairness when the rules are already being followed.

I actually agree with this. I'm for the concept of the pipeline, and if it runs to Prince Rupert it seems fairly safe for the ocean. Nothing is 100% safe, and we can't shut down all economic activity. OTOH, Enbridge sounds like a cavalier company. Actually I think they all are, all of them put profit ahead of people. That's the government's job - regulate and oversee the private sector so reasonable precautions are taken. I'm not satisfied that federal or provincial governments are willing to do that tho. Until they do, no pipeline for you.

[DrCaleb]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Political posturing. Nothing more.

Enbridge wants to build a pipe across BC. If there is a spill, Enbridge pays for the cleanup, just like it always does. Not BC. Alberta sells oilsands to companies and collect royalties on it, and those companies pay Enbridge (or another company) to ship the oil in their pipe to markets. The Government of Alberta has little to do with things after the first sale, why should it pass royalties to BC for something 2 companies are doing?

Speaking of which, how much in royalties does BC pay for the natural gas pipelines up north, or the trucks full of timber that roll across our highways? Did they ever give Alberta one dime when Bill Bennet approved a hydro dam that caused a severe water shortage in southern Alberta?

No.

So, STFU and let's talk about how we are going to get products to market in a responsible manner, instead of whining about fairness when the rules are already being followed.

Nice try, but no.

The damage caused by a significant oil spill--say a tanker rupture like the Exxon Valdez, lasts a long time. Sure they can pay to clean it up, but they get maybe 10 or 20% of the oil in ideal circumstances. A good chunk evaporates, but given that this is heavy oil (oil sands bitumen) it would be pretty sticky and a good chunk would probably sink too. If it happened in the Kitimat Arm, especially in winter, it would not be an exaggeration to say that i would be an ecological catastrophe. Fish, shellfish, marine mammals, migratory birds, birds of prey, wildlife, indigenous populations, towns--it's got it all.

It's all well and good to talk about getting the oil to market when Alberta is collecting the royalties and BC is assuming the risk.

And Enbridge is already under fire for what was deemed a poor response to a large oil spill to a Michigan river. Also, governments are downsizing, and that includes cutting back on environment, so the prepardness and response capability are degraded.

There are already tankers plying the west coast, but they don't come through the Hecate Strait, which, maritmers tell me, is a treacherous little slip of water. They traverse from Alaska, west of the Haida Gwaii, and head to Washington or California refineries. Small tankers come into Vacouver Harbour infrequently, and have for a donkey's age.

And the oil goes to China, with few environmental protection laws, so there's that.

None of these issues are insurmountable, but as it stands, from my viewpoint anyways, it doesn't look good.

Just a little FYI there - Enbridge doesn't own the tanker, just the pipeline. A spill from that line would be paid for by Enbridge, not the government of BC.

I've never discounted that a tanker spill would be catastrophic. But the possibility could be mitigated by requiring that any tanker in that straight be double hulled. Unlike the Exxon Valdez.

I know many BCers don't like the idea of a pipeline, but the oil will flow. And they will blame Albertans, as if we have any say in it. If the pipeline isn't approved, business will find another way. Rail isn't as safe, but long trains full of oil can fill that void if need be and don't require approval. What we need to do is grab them by the balls and squeeze a little bit, to ensure they take the same veiw of the environment that we do.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

There are already tankers plying the west coast, but they don't come through the Hecate Strait, which, maritmers tell me, is a treacherous little slip of water.

AFAIK, if the oil was shipped from Prince Rupert there would be no reason to go thru Hecate Strait.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

Enbridge wants to build a pipe across BC. If there is a spill, Enbridge pays for the cleanup, just like it always does. Not BC. Alberta sells oilsands to companies and collect royalties on it, and those companies pay Enbridge (or another company) to ship the oil in their pipe to markets. The Government of Alberta has little to do with things after the first sale, why should it pass royalties to BC for something 2 companies are doing?

Lets get real here. Look at the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill. Oil from that spill (which was the largest in history prior to the recent BP Gulf spill) is STILL washing up on western shores, almost a quarter century later and many of the fisheries, wildlife populations and communities have never recovered. So let's not pretend that spills can be "cleaned up" or undone. Less than 7% of the spilled oil was recovered. Some damage is permanent.

Let's also take note of the fact, that almost a quarter century later, Exxon has only paid a fraction of fines and penalties levvied against it. Despite having the largest profits of any company in the world, sympathetic lawmakers and judges, over the course of more than 2 decades, continually reduced the amount payable to a fraction of the initial penalty and also awarded the company decades-long payment schedules. A number of lawsuits with Exxon are still open, despite the fact that nearly 8,000 orignal claimants have since died.

So lets accept that reality could play out in a Northern Gateway spill and stop pretending that if something goes wrong, Enbridge (or whatever company spills) will instaneously or ever just 'make the problem go away.'

[DrCaleb]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

Enbridge wants to build a pipe across BC. If there is a spill, Enbridge pays for the cleanup, just like it always does. Not BC. Alberta sells oilsands to companies and collect royalties on it, and those companies pay Enbridge (or another company) to ship the oil in their pipe to markets. The Government of Alberta has little to do with things after the first sale, why should it pass royalties to BC for something 2 companies are doing?

Lets get real here. Look at the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill. Oil from that spill (which was the largest in history prior to the recent BP Gulf spill) is STILL washing up on western shores, almost a quarter century later and many of the fisheries, wildlife populations and communities have never recovered. So let's not pretend that spills can be "cleaned up" or undone. Less than 7% of the spilled oil was recovered. Some damage is permanent.

Let's also take note of the fact, that almost a quarter century later, Exxon has only paid a fraction of fines and penalties levvied against it. Despite having the largest profits of any company in the world, sympathetic lawmakers and judges, over the course of more than 2 decades, continually reduced the amount payable to a fraction of the initial penalty and also awarded the company decades-long payment schedules. A number of lawsuits with Exxon are still open, despite the fact that nearly 8,000 orignal claimants have since died.

So lets accept that reality could play out in a Northern Gateway spill and stop pretending that if something goes wrong, Enbridge (or whatever company spills) will instaneously or ever just 'make the problem go away.'

Enbridge = pipeline.

Pipelines don't go overseas. Someone else owns the tanker.

Do you need me to draw it in crayon for you?

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Enbridge = pipeline.

Pipelines don't go overseas. Someone else owns the tanker.

Do you need me to draw it in crayon for you?

How disingenuous (and snotty) of you. No tankers no pipeline. Fine, the precise point is that Enbridge won't be owning the tankers that ship the oil. But there wouldn't be any tankers except for Enbridge.

This whole project is based on substantially higher oil prices than we had even a while ago. With oil prices dropping I wonder if it will be put on the back burner anyway.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

Enbridge = pipeline.

Pipelines don't go overseas. Someone else owns the tanker.

Do you need me to draw it in crayon for you?

Holy fuck Sherlock, look who needs the crayons! WTF is your point anyways?

NOTE:

1) Pipelines can spill too and Enbridge is currently responsible for largest pipeline spill, which occured just in 2010. And they got roasted for their incompetence. What are tyring to suggest in the above, that oil spills are somehow better if they come out of a pipe than a ship? A spill is a spill dummy.

2) This pipeline is being proposed along with a SHIPPING TERMINAL, where the pipeline oil will be pumped onto TANKERS. They want to bring TANKERS into an environmentally sensitive area. Are you saying that an oil spill on the scale of Valdez will somehow be ok as long as the ship isn't owned by Enbridge? Lke PetroChina or Russia's GazProm will somehow be more diligent in prevention and clean-up?

Maybe you should take those crayons out of your ears, I think you're sticking them in too deep.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

There are already tankers plying the west coast, but they don't come through the Hecate Strait, which, maritmers tell me, is a treacherous little slip of water.

AFAIK, if the oil was shipped from Prince Rupert there would be no reason to go thru Hecate Strait.

No but it will still go through Dixon Entrance . A truly miserable stretch of ocean.

[Thanos]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Yeah, like everyone opposing Northern Gareway is an enviro nazi. Lots of very reasonable people oppose the project for very real issues.

Speaking of Ezra-like twats, try stop posting like one in occasion.

Sorry. Didn't mean to upset you.

Tell you what, with you in charge and all, I'll PM my stuff to you first before I post it just to make sure it meets your approval.

Sound fair to you, boss?

[andyt]

Gunnair Gunnair:

andyt andyt:

AFAIK, if the oil was shipped from Prince Rupert there would be no reason to go thru Hecate Strait.

No but it will still go through Dixon Entrance . A truly miserable stretch of ocean.

But there's nothing to hit there. The tankers should surely be big enough to slough off any weather/waves.

[Gunnair]

Thanos Thanos:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Yeah, like everyone opposing Northern Gareway is an enviro nazi. Lots of very reasonable people oppose the project for very real issues.

Speaking of Ezra-like twats, try stop posting like one in occasion.

Sorry. Didn't mean to upset you.

Tell you what, with you in charge and all, I'll PM my stuff to you first before I post it just to make sure it meets your approval.

Sound fair to you, boss?

No need. Just don't whine when you get called on the size of that paintbrush you so clumsily wield, sport.