• We apologize for the somewhat convoluted sign-up process. Due to ever-more sophisticated attacks by chatbots, we had to increase our filtering in order to weed out AI while letting humans through. It's a nuisance, but a necessary one in order to keep the level of discourse on the forums authentic and useful. From the actual humans using WCP, thanks for your understanding!

The Pipedreams Project, BC's coast & the Enbridge Pipeline

Re: The Pipedreams Project, BC's coast & the Enbridge Pipeli

Signal to Noise ratio is a measure of the quality of a signal. When there is too much noise the signal can no longer be heard.

what with radioactive garbage from Fukashima showing up on the Coast, and pesticide residues concentrated across the planet in top carnivores etc. What gives you the idea that you've got this nice little fence around your piece of the planet
Click to expand...

The topic is pipeline and oil tanker specific to Kitimat and area. All I'm hearing is noise.

This discussion should be centered on finding a rational reason for not allowing the pipeline to be built and not allowing tankers on the coast. The fear of a negligable risk of a leak will not stop the project from progressing.

The other topic are:
what safegaurds should be in place to ensure Enbridge does due diligence on its pipeline.

what safegaurds should be in place to prevent ships from striking rocks.

what measures should be in place should the minimal risk manifest as a disaster.

You want to discuss other disasters then start another thread.
 
Re: The Pipedreams Project, BC's coast & the Enbridge Pipeli

ken_vandeburgt said:
All I'm hearing is noise.
Click to expand...
^ This. From someone who posts off-topic on a regular basis. :roll:

The world is my backyard. Who are you Ken, to tell me different?
 
Re: The Pipedreams Project, BC's coast & the Enbridge Pipeli

ken_vandeburgt said:
You want to discuss other disasters then start another thread.
Click to expand...
Who made you a moderator of this discussion? Just wonderin'.
 
Re: The Pipedreams Project, BC's coast & the Enbridge Pipeli

ken_vandeburgt said:
The best way not to deal with a tanker mishap is to not allow tankers.
Click to expand...

This is a democracy. That means rational discussion so that everyone including Enbridge gets a fair shake. Mob rule by loud simpletons (see Canticle for Leibowitz) is not a democracy. There will be tankers unless you find something relevant; something other than a NIMBY reason.

You can hide your head in the sand or you can be proactive and do what you can to make it safe.
Click to expand...

Canada is a country supposedly working towards being "green" and "clean" - and allowing tankers in our inner waters is totally in the opposite direction. Regardless of your argument that the risk of a spill is negligible, links already posted here show that oil tankers pose significant risk of spill and Enbridge itself poses significant risks of spill. I do see that you are arguing that this is going to happen no matter what we say - that makes me angry...not the fact that you say it but the fact that you are probably right. Enbridge and our gov't are saying that all the dissenters are foreigners and americans. Most of the people I talk with, including people who work in the oil fields, do not want this pipeline to be built. They either cite the risks of environmental damage, or the need to refine the oil at home and keep the jobs here. But nobody is listening to us at this point. There will be very few BC or Canadian jobs arise from it - the money will all be made by Enbridge and other big corporations. Yes, evidently there are reasons that we may want to diversify our sales so that we aren't relying only exporting to the USA. But it still comes down to...there are no reasons good enough in most peoples' books to risk the damage to our environment. This is MHO, but do I have to also state here, I am a Canadian-born, tax-paying citizen of Canada....and do have a right to an opinion and SHOULD have a right to a say in whether this pipeline happens in my country or not?
 
Re: The Pipedreams Project, BC's coast & the Enbridge Pipeli

This. From someone who posts off-topic on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

You want to post off topic then go ahead. Fill your boots. As you say, I do it lots.

Stop posting off topic with the pretention that it has anything to do with the topic at hand.

Try pretending that you are addressing the committee heading the environmental review.
 
Re: The Pipedreams Project, BC's coast & the Enbridge Pipeli

Ken, you're not the only one with an opinion. And you certainly don't have the authority to stop others from voicing theirs just because it's not what you want to hear. Nothing that I've posted is off-topic. It all relates to the consumption (and perceived) need for oil products and hence this perceived need to export our oil. It's all for money. Screw the planet. That you are so narrow-minded is quite troubling. I really don't understand how anyone who actively spends time paddling around the waters of this beautiful coast can be so eager to put it in danger of being destroyed. You are an enigma, Ken.

Dan_Millsip said:
Let's keep it civil, please.
Click to expand...
I'm trying. I really am.
 
Re: The Pipedreams Project, BC's coast & the Enbridge Pipeli

what safegaurds should be in place to prevent ships from striking rocks.
Click to expand...

Well, let's bear in mind that the wind off Solander Island is regularly reported to be in excess of 160 km/hr.....and that we live on a major crustal interface between two continental plates, and that all the safeguards in the world don't seem to help when there is an idiot making love on the bridge, just how would one do that...the hubris is beyond idiotic, that all the risks can be mitigated - as is regularly disproved every day in the headlines...ya they "should" be in place. It's just that they never are are they? Thats why I regularly encounter big tarballs on my paddling expeditions on the coast...a spill happened in someone else's back yard. And I resent your implication as to the inevitability of all of this as Enbridge grabs is disproportionalte piece of the commons which, by the way is never fairly valued in the economic models of risk or reward...just some "externality" to be sacrificied some where...nature never gets any rights does it - the precautionary principle...so it goes. Can we please limit the devastation to Alberta?

And your idea that we can just reassemble the broken pieces by "mitigating the <inevitable> damage" after it happens...we must have a special relationship with nature to be able to do that so easily.
 
Re: The Pipedreams Project, BC's coast & the Enbridge Pipeli

Thanks Kasey for that link; I urge all like-minded true outdoor enthusiasts to register their opinions to counteract the lies of the Conservative Government.
 
Re: The Pipedreams Project, BC's coast & the Enbridge Pipeli

1.The pipeline would kill jobs all across Canada. Regionally, the small number of jobs building and maintaining the pipeline are not worth the risk that oil spills pose to thousands of jobs in fisheries and tourism.[6] Just ask the residents of the Gulf Coast.

Nationally, the pipeline would close factories in Ontario and Quebec. How? For the last ten years, the expansion of tar sands exports has driven up the Canadian dollar, making Canada’s manufacturing exports more expensive and less competitive. This pattern is called the “Dutch Disease,” and in Canada it has contributed to the loss of 627,000 manufacturing jobs in the last nine years. This pipeline will make the situation much worse.[7]

2.The pipeline would destabilize our climate. We have to choose between expanding the tar sands and preventing runaway global warming.[8]

3.The pipeline would threaten our coast and salmon rivers. The pipeline would bring 200+ super-tankers a year to some of the most difficult waters in the world, the area that sank the Queen of the North, a large ferry. This creates an unacceptable threat of a major oil spill, and that’s not the only risk. The pipeline will leak. The same day the review panel hearings opened, Enbridge reported a leak in another one of their pipelines.[9]

4.Over 70 First Nations have banned the pipeline and supertankers from their territory. They have never given up their right to refuse projects, and they are rejecting this project despite significant cash incentives because oil spills are such a major threat to their land and water.

http://www.leadnow.ca/canadas-interests
Click to expand...

The pipeline would kill jobs all across Canada
Click to expand...

Numbers to three decimal places please.

For the last ten years, the expansion of tar sands exports has driven up the Canadian dollar, making Canada’s manufacturing exports more expensive and less competitive.
Click to expand...

Our dollar is now par with US ... so why is our labour force not competitive with the US labour force? Are you recommending that we adopt the peso? Further, its not our dollar that has gone up; its the US dollar that has dropped significantly. $C still buys roughly the same Pesos, Euros, Pounds, and Yuans as it did a decade ago.

in Canada it has contributed to the loss of 627,000 manufacturing jobs in the last nine years.
Click to expand...

Ayuh ... it might be a contributor ... how much of a contributor? Considering that under Chretien the dollar was driven to historical and artificial lows. How many of you shop in the US because prices are too high here yet refuse to take the same pay levels as south of the border?

Just ask the residents of the Gulf Coast
Click to expand...

The beaches in the Gulf are clean and open for business.

The pipeline would destabilize our climate. We have to choose between expanding the tar sands and preventing runaway global warming
Click to expand...

Or you could say that oil burns MUCH cleaner than the coal that is currently being burned ... if you believe that anthropogenic global warming is fact then you should be in favour of displacing coal burning with oil burning.

And, what makes this pipeline stand out from all the other pipelines that criss cross the planet?

The pipeline would threaten our coast and salmon rivers.
Click to expand...

There are people who would prefer the pipeline is redirected to Prince Rupert. The pipeline would follow the road and rail which follow the Skeena ... which actually is a major salmon bearing river.

The pipeline would bring 200+ super-tankers a year to some of the most difficult waters in the world
Click to expand...

There are literally thousands of voyages each year that pass without incident in these most difficult waters in the world.

And, If it is so dangerous perhaps we should ban kayakers. Which is what you risk if you overturn laws anchored in public trust doctrine.

the area that sank the Queen of the North, a large ferry.
Click to expand...

If the rumours are true the sinking of the Queen of the North was an act of criminal neglect and does not qualify as an accident. Since there has been no satisfactory official explaination I assume the rumours are true.

The same day the review panel hearings opened, Enbridge reported a leak in another one of their pipelines.[
Click to expand...

Here is actually a good arguement. US government passed an environmental act that disallows tanker companies with a poor safety record from loading oil at Valdez. Perhaps we should say pipeline yes but not by Enbridge.

Over 70 First Nations have banned the pipeline and supertankers from their territory. They have never given up their right to refuse projects, and they are rejecting this project despite significant cash incentives because oil spills are such a major threat to their land and water.
Click to expand...

I've heard this before in reference to Clayoquot Logging. I attach no credibility.

Here’s the real question: is it in Canada’s best interests to build this pipeline and expand the tar sands?
http://www.leadnow.ca/canadas-interests
Click to expand...

Yes this is the real question. Too bad it is not being discussed rationally.
 
Re: The Pipedreams Project, BC's coast & the Enbridge Pipeli

First...just to be clear...I'm not in favour of an Oil Port in Kitimat.
As I've also stated...I have read a lot from both sides.

However, in the interest of being fair...I am NOT in favour of mis-information and in fearmongering.

I recommend reading this article...
It addresses one issue that has not been highlighted...who is paying the bills for the anti-oil campaign?...it is sure to raise an eyebrow!
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/sands+money+trail/6012144/story.html
Now...Hewlett Packard is one of the main contributors...they are not exactly the best corporate citizens...
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2009/07/greenpeace_slap.html
Whether you recognize it or not, whether you even care or not, quite a bit of the 'Environmental' movement has an ulterior motive...its' called 'POLITICS', and its called PROFIT for a handful of Billionaire Americans.
See Hewlett Packard political contributions here:
http://www.politicalaccountability.net/index.php?ht=a/GetDocumentAction/i/4101
Does Hewlett Packard have an evirnomental concern?...or are their motives politically (for profit) based?

Regardless...I'm still against the Oil Port...but one should see and know the WHOLE picture.
 
Re: The Pipedreams Project, BC's coast & the Enbridge Pipeli

Ken B said:
I recommend reading this article...

It addresses one issue that has not been highlighted...who is paying the bills for the anti-oil campaign?...it is sure to raise an eyebrow!
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/sands+money+trail/6012144/story.html
Click to expand...
Interesting read. Can't say I want the outside money and support to stop, but it does demand asking, "why?"
 
Re: The Pipedreams Project, BC's coast & the Enbridge Pipeli

stuckonearth said:
Interesting read. Can't say I want the outside money and support to stop, but it does demand asking, "why?"
Click to expand...

One article I read said this...
"In various environmental campaigns in Canada, American economic and trade interests are being protected. For example, the campaign against oil tanker traffic on the north coast of British Columbia would landlock Canadian oil and continue the virtual monopoly that the U.S. has on our oil exports - all in the name of protecting the environment. No oil tanker traffic means no oil exports to Asia."
Here is the article:
WARNING...also addresses the anti-Salmon Farming Campaign...but does involve the same outside money.
http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/
 
Re: The Pipedreams Project, BC's coast & the Enbridge Pipeli

While the data provided by Ms Krause indeed needs looking into The National Post as a right wing rag is not a credible voice when it comes to anything environmental. They have and always will be a business first newspaper, they over the years in editorials have denied the existence of global warming, and unequivocally supported the oil sands etc etc. As for Ms Krause one has to just look at her blog to know where her agenda lies. On all of the above issues she takes the conservative, anti-environmental stance, her pro fish farming position and her vehemence to anyone who is of a contrary view is well publicized (i.e. Suzuki). She is a columnist for the The National/Financial Post for a reason.
 
Re: The Pipedreams Project, BC's coast & the Enbridge Pipeli

Labowe said:
While the data provided by Ms Krause indeed needs looking into The National Post as a right wing rag is not a credible voice when it comes to anything environmental. They have and always will be a business first newspaper, they over the years in editorials have denied the existence of global warming, and unequivocally supported the oil sands etc etc. As for Ms Krause one has to just look at her blog to know where her agenda lies. On all of the above issues she takes the conservative, anti-environmental stance, her pro fish farming position and her vehemence to anyone who is of a contrary view is well publicized (i.e. Suzuki). She is a columnist for the The National/Financial Post for a reason.
Click to expand...

And yet her claims are honest and undisputed. It should make you question the motivation of those organizations who support these causes. While I am a very strong critic of open pen salmon farming, I know that Alaskan salmon fishermen benefit from closing down B.C. salmon farms; they catch wild B.C. salmon migrating through U.S. waters and then benefit a second time through reduced competition on the open market. For them shutting down fish farms is a win-win situation, with B.C. losing out. The point being, they spend money to shut down Canadian industries for financial reasons that have nothing to do with the environment. The same thing applies to some of those organizations that are opposed to the Enbridge pipeline. They put up this "Environmental Catastrophe" argument, when it's really about U.S. financial gain, at the expense of Canadians.
 
Re: The Pipedreams Project, BC's coast & the Enbridge Pipeli

Labowe said:
As for Ms Krause one has to just look at her blog to know where her agenda lies. On all of the above issues she takes the conservative, anti-environmental stance, her pro fish farming position and her vehemence to anyone who is of a contrary view is well publicized (i.e. Suzuki).
Click to expand...
Agenda aside...does she write lies (untruths)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top