Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

As people in BC already know... (Enbridge Pipeline)

profile picture
Lé.Skiing
Posts: 10035 - Karma: 8,122
They are planning on building a pipeline that spans across BC.  I for one am 100% against the project.  The reason why you may ask? watch this video and tell me its a good idea to introduce a pipeline into one of the few remaining rainforests on our planet.


I hope everyone that lives in BC agrees that this pipeline is a bad idea and puts a stop to this proposal.  I don't want to see my home destroyed.  I mean who wants to see someone shit on their front doorstep.  that's pretty much what they are planning to do in my mind.
Feb 4 2012 2:16PM
0 0
profile picture
paige.
Posts: 1930 - Karma: 907
Form what I've heard, basically everyone in BC is already against this, BC gets all the risk and AB gets all the money. Unfortunately Harper is all for it. Sounds like the current plan is to build parts of the pipe in the undisputed areas and slowly expand until the entire pipe is constructed, despite the massive amounts of opposition.
Feb 4 2012 2:30PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,141
Yeah terrible idea because when you're in a massive global recession and your largest trading partner to the south is being hit harder than any other country on earth, and you have the opportunity to develop a huge trading relationship with the world's next superpower by selling them your single most valuable resource, that's just a terrible idea.

It's also pointless, because this thing is going to happen. All the outrage on the behalf of cute animals who will be harmed far less than if someone built, say, a new highway where the pipeline is going is pointless. It accomplishes nothing, aside from making the whole enterprise more expensive and creating delays, which is essentially taking money out of the pockets of the Canadian public (especially British Columbians and Albertans).
Feb 4 2012 2:31PM
0 0
profile picture
Lé.Skiing
Posts: 10035 - Karma: 8,122
well have you ever lived in BC? when you grew up did you ever go fishing or just go on drives looking at the natural beauty of the land?  have you ever even thought about the environment? This pipeline will not just harm animals, it will harm everything that BC is about which is the beauty of the land.  I grew up on the north in terrace which is shown in the video right near kitimat.  it is a great place for fishing there are people I know that have jobs taking people around rivers doing fishing trips and showing them the land.  this will impact their jobs.  There are whale watching tours around the coast of BC which will also be affected.  its not just about the cute little animals.  It's much much bigger than just one thing its about taking one thing out and it will set of a huge chain of events leading to people forced out of their villages collapse communities.  Do you even have the slightest idea how things in nature work?  I don't mean to sound like a dick, but dude you think you have one opinion that is one and of your own.  The more you think about how it will impact the people more than just the animals its about that i will extinct the one bear that is my home towns image.  the spirit bear.  It's that kind of narrow mindedness that irritates me about some people.  I am speaking from someone who grew up in the area that they are posing to build it.  Maybe I might have a bit more knowledge on what this is truly going to do for everything in total.  rather than just a few animals.  It could potentially wipe out a species that is about as rare as the panda...  I don't mean to sound like a hippy but really this earth is the only one we got and I for one am all about greener energy.  this pipeline in my mind is a very very bad idea.  There are ways of preventing things from happening.  It's called taking action and joining in a fight for a cause.  the more people you get on the bandwagon the more chance of stopping something that's going to be harmful.   Think of it like this you like your ski hills right?  well what if a company said we need to demolish this mountain so we can get something from your land...  it will give people from outside of your community jobs and only for a short while.  We will make all the profit and you will have short time employment and be lacking a ski hill.. say its the the only one you have in your entire state.  would you vote for it or against it?  That's the best analogy  I can make up to make you relate to the situation. 
Feb 4 2012 2:59PM
0 0
profile picture
Lé.Skiing
Posts: 10035 - Karma: 8,122
I don't mean to sound like an asshole but sometimes you need to give people your perspective on things...    Sorry if in me doing that it sounded like I was just being a gigantic dick.  There is a severity of not only my province but how canada will look to push the production of oil.  The amount of water waste we are doing in the Alberta tar sands is almost sickening.  Canada the place that has the most fresh water supply in the world and we're wasting it on the production of oil.  I hope I have kinda opened some peoples eyes and not closed some peoples minds just because I was sounding like a bit of a dick about it.  I am all for the cause of pro life not destroying what little we have that we will miss once its gone. 
Feb 4 2012 3:05PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,141
26 years. All my family still lives there, and I have a place on Bowen Island that I'll probably live most of my life in. Saying things like "it will harm everything that BC is about" just reveals that you have only a superficial understanding of what is going on. How the hell does a pipeline, which is pretty much invisible, affect the "beauty of the land"? Realistically, you're never going to know it's there. The 3000 people who are employed as a result of it being built, though, sure will. And even though you don't realize it, you'll be benefited by the 270 billion in increased GDP before you retire. As far as impact on small communities, the small businesses in northern BC that will sell hundreds of millions in products and services as a result will thank you to remember that BC has something to do with them too. In reality, this is nothing but good for northern communities, which will grow and see additional infrastructure spending while taking in a bunch of new tax revenue.

Basically it looks like you don't actually know much about this project, aside from hearing "oil pipeline" and immediately assuming "bad".
Feb 4 2012 3:28PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,141
No, it's called the National Energy Board. The NEB approves interprovincial pipelines and they will approve this one. Why? Because Enbridge is going to spend piles and piles of money making sure they do. Which is good, because it will require them to address the environmental concerns. NEB environmental reviews are incredibly detailed and address  impacts down to the local population of specific species of river frogs.

So yeah I'm going to once again go ahead and question your claim to knowing more than others what impacts this is going to have.
Feb 4 2012 3:31PM
0 0
profile picture
hoodratz47
Posts: 11992 - Karma: 9,212
so is most of the oil going to be shipped to china?
Feb 4 2012 3:47PM
0 0
profile picture
Lé.Skiing
Posts: 10035 - Karma: 8,122
the fact there will be an oil spill doesn't seem to concern you either.  I have read up on the project.  My Father is actually on the hearing council.  So for you to make assumptions like that shows you base your opinions on assumptions not cold hard facts.  Yah sure we may not see it if it operates without a single flaw.  There's one thing about man that you're forgetting, we're based off of flaws.  Flaws are what we do best.   Ever done something and thought ahhh its good enough.   Well I'm sure that's what happened with every other oil spill throughout history.  what makes you think this time will be any different.  You also only seem to be looking at money.  My Idea of money is a sustainable environment.  Not pieces of paper useless to people if they were out living in the bush.  You do realize that there are other ways to get money into our country through trading other resources.  Not that canada doesn't trade enough with every other country.  We should be building wind farms and other things in the field of creating jobs by creating a greener BC and even a greener Canda.  Why go with a substance that's going to massively impact to our nature.   I could go on with how its a terrible idea with way more things that could benefit us as a country without having to sacrifice the province of BC's environment but, I'm not here to change your one track opinion.  I'm expressing my thoughts on something that may seem like a good ideas to some, but in all actuality is a toxic ideology formed by oil companies for the growth of wealth in the production and trafficking of oil. 
Feb 4 2012 3:56PM
0 0
profile picture
snowbombz
Posts: 2456 - Karma: 96
Great investment!
In 50 years they are going to be dangerously short on water, and have a huge population of old people and a not-as-huge population of young people. In the long run, China is fucked
Feb 4 2012 3:57PM
0 0
profile picture
hoodratz47
Posts: 11992 - Karma: 9,212
well played.

Feb 4 2012 3:58PM
0 0
profile picture
angus_k_
Posts: 438 - Karma: 24
Im sort of split on this issue.

I'm not hugely familiar with the entire Enbridge Plan. My biggest fear, and I think its shared with a lot of the people against the pipeline, is a tanker accident in the waterways approaching Kitimat. My other fear is obviously a pipeline failure. I have a lot of faith in naval architecture and civil engineering, but in the end it comes down to probabilities and money, no pipeline is perfect.

I think the jobs/economic argument is sound. Every city in British Columbia exists through the economy of natural resources, primarily mining and forestry. The pipeline would a be a long term boost to every town on its route. Higher employment, lower poverty, better standards of living...

There are so many bigger questions that this pipeline brings up. If we weren't dependent on oil, what would we be dependant on? All sources of energy have the ups and downs. All have negative environmental impacts.

L.E. Skiing:

You are obviously extremely passionate about this issue, and I suspect your dad is as well, and its important to have those views discussed regarding this huge decision. In response to your posts:

Please break your paragraphs up!

I would be careful to claim that its not all about cute animals, but the bigger picture, and then go on to discuss the Spirit Bear. Also, a ski hill is a bad analogy regarding protecting the environment, clear cutting land so that humans can be dragged uphill by diesel engines for fun.

You have good points, but they're coming off as dick, hippy rants. You haven't even mentioned the Talmadge Creek oil spill, probably one of the strongest arguments against another Enbridge pipeline. Direct people to the "List of oil spills" wikipedia page and scroll through looking for Canadian and US spills.


Feb 4 2012 4:27PM
0 0
profile picture
Lé.Skiing
Posts: 10035 - Karma: 8,122
thanks for the positive feedback and, in the future will try to refrain from posting huge walls of text. 

Knowing when to start a new paragraph was never a strong point of mine.  I guess I can kinda blame MSN Messenger for that.  haha
Feb 4 2012 4:44PM
0 0
profile picture
Schoellkopf
Posts: 1300 - Karma: 122
I dunno much about anything, but I do know we need to invest more in oil because that's future of energy.
Feb 4 2012 4:48PM
0 0
profile picture
Mike-O
Posts: 14593 - Karma: 1,089
Poignant sarcasm is poignant.
Feb 4 2012 4:49PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,141
The "fact" there will be an oil spill? Like it's a complete inevitability that this thing is going to rupture and spill oil everywhere? You're absolutely ridiculous. What makes me think there won't be an oil spill is very simple: the last thing a company like Enbridge wants is a spill, it costs them an insane amount of money in reclamation and repair costs not to mention their stock price tanks because it's an extremely public thing to have happen and goodwill disappears. They'll do everything possible to prevent it. Not to mention this is going to be one of Enbridge's biggest assets and they can't afford to NOT have it performing at peak efficiency.

"My dad is on the council" doesn't somehow demonstrate that YOU know anything. In fact, every post that you make seems to demonstrate the opposite. Also, what the hell is a "hearing council"? There is no body of regulatory review in B.C. that has any role in approving this project at this stage.  Wind farms? We do build those, lots of them, but it's absolutely impossible to supply adequate energy using windmills. They're a supplement and a very well funded and incetivized one. But they aren't a substitute for other energy sources.

The problem with you and people like you is that you have no grip on reality. "Greener" power is all well and good but you seem to be under the unbelievably wrong impression that there's an equivalence here, like it's just a toss up and we can choose either one. Canada is a resource exporter. It's what we do: mining, oil, and forestry. That's reality, it is how it's always going to be. You can't just flip a switch and change that, you need to deal with that reality. Without our resources, we are a poor country, and your life sucks. You don't appreciate what the tax revenue generated from companies like Enbridge and Transcanada and Cenovus and Suncor and Pembina etc etc etc do for you.

Simply put, you need to get real.
Feb 4 2012 4:53PM
0 0
profile picture
Lé.Skiing
Posts: 10035 - Karma: 8,122
No sir I believe it is you who needs to "get real".  I understand how the world operates.  I have a vast understanding on whats actually going on. 

As I have also stated but you neglect to point out that I also have read everything up on it.  I know they are trying to push for it but, I alongside others am trying to push back. 

I know that they're not going to want an oil spill but it will happen.   whether they like it or not.  it may be in a few years it may be in 20 years or even further down the road. 

I have not the time nor energy to try and penetrate your dull mind with my understanding of how and why anymore, good day sir.


Feb 4 2012 5:10PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,141
Clearly you have a very clear understanding given that your impression of money is that it is "little peices of paper that are of no use to anyone out in the bush". Not that it, yknow, pays for your universal health care, or the roads you drive on, or public education, or anything like that. What exactly do you think accounts for the difference between the quality of life here and in Mexico?

You're out of your tree. No pun intended or anything.
Feb 4 2012 5:21PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12752 - Karma: 32,264
The whole thing is retarded.

I go down the street and see fuel prices at $1.24/litre. When an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico catches fire my fuel price jumps, when a war breaks out in the Middle East again the price of fuel rises.

A quick search tells me Canada is importing about 20 billion cubic metres of natural gas and almost 400 million barrels of oil a year.

Then another quick search says that Canada is exporting 90 billion cubic metres of natural gas and almost 800 million barrels of oil a year.


Then I realize WTF. We are exporting vastly more than we import. Why not export a bit less than have to import none. Then I realize that it's all in that name of profit. The oil companies are screwing us over. Foreign and Canadian companies are exporting petroleum from our country that could be going to us to meet our demands, which is then forcing us to buy oil and gas from other sources at a completely inflated price than what it would be from using our own.


If our government wasn't lobbied the fuck out from the oil companies, long ago there would be legislation in place preventing export of petroleum products until our own needs are met, thus not having to import any at all. Does that not just make so much sense?? And environmentally speaking it would be massively positive.

Unfortunately, that would cut into the profits of oils companies. The greedy fucks. And so, as long as they have influence on our government, it will never happen.


A great example of this is the Keystone pipeline.

Let's build a pipeline to US for crude, so they can refine it and no doubt export some of the product back. Why not create jobs here in Canada and refine here then export it or do whatever with it. Apparently that won't create as much profit for the oil companies, screw jobs in Canada. So that won't happen. And why would our Prime Minister be for this when it's losing thousands of possible jobs in Canada? God damn eh.
Feb 4 2012 5:23PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,141
Yeah why not, yknow, do that stuff or whatever? It's amazing how people who have no concept of how this stuff works seem to think they have all the answers. It would create MASSIVE amounts of additional income for oil companies if they could refine near source. It's just not feasible - we do not have the capability to refine it here. Creating that capability would mean somehow finding a massive workforce who is willing to run that operation and spending billions creating the refineries and supplementary capacity to do it. Who's going to do that? You want the Canadian government spending your tax dollars on it? I don't think so. I don't want them to, the Canadian government running an oil concern is a generally bad idea and Petro Can is no more as a result. So how are you hoping to make this miracle solution happen exactly?
Feb 4 2012 5:28PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12752 - Karma: 32,264
J.D., it's very narrow minded to think short term gain is better than long term sustainability. And by short term, I also mean in 50 or 100 years.

All this build a pipeline now now now and exploit every bit of oil we can find now now now could easily be our complete ruin.

What if in 100 years we just simply don't find an alternative energy source for when there isn't nearly enough fuel left to meet our needs?

Nuclear fusion is what I'm looking to as the future, but what if it just never gets feasible? Exploiting everything we can now just seems silly.

Why not take a bit more time for all these projects and assess their impacts even more carefully and just slow all this progress down. Make sure our ancestors in 200 years will still be living as comfortably as we are today.
Feb 4 2012 5:35PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12752 - Karma: 32,264
Our unemployment is at what, 7%?

That's thousands upon thousands of Canadians without jobs. Man power is not an issue.

And I'm not talking about refining right at the source, but somewhere else in Canada.

The oil companies need to build the facilities elsewhere anyways, why not build them in Canada and employ Canadians? They are our resources anyways.
Feb 4 2012 5:40PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,141
You are also looking at these things like they're options. Eventually, in the next hundred years, progress will need to yield alternative energy sources. It's a gradual process. Hell, look at the shift towards non-gas cars. That need for gradual change doesn't mean shutting down all the wells right now. In the meantime, we need the oil patch because without it, this country doesn't look much like Canada as we know it.

People fearmongering about what the world might look like a hundred years from now is a really weak argument. We can't possibly predict what advances will occur in the next hundred years, it's like trying to predict the existence of the iPhone in 1912. It's an excuse for not dealing with the world as it is. In any event, taking a discussion about development of a specific pipeline project and making it about our dependence on petroleum products over the next hundred years is completely pointless.
Feb 4 2012 5:42PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12752 - Karma: 32,264
And I know you work for an oil company and your immediate thought is to 'fuck all them hippies' and agree with everything that oil companies propose, but I'm trying to take the most logical approach to this.

what sense does in make to export massive amounts only to cause the need to import? Besides immediate profit for oil companies, it makes absolutely no sense at all. Then we're subject to our gas prices going through the roof when there's overseas conflict or disaster when it really shouldn't affect us at all.
Feb 4 2012 5:46PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,141
No they're not ours. People paid a bunch of money for mineral rights. The resources belong to them every bit as much as the land your parents live on belongs to them.

Recovering bitumen and sending it a thousand miles through a pipe to somewhere else in Canada for refining is MORE expensive, not less. That makes zero sense.

Unemployment is at 7%, how many of them are unemployed oil engineers? First of all, anyone who wants a job can move to Ft. McMurray right now. Work at Timmy Ho's for 15 bucks an hour. But the point is, you can't force people to work in a particular industry. You can't force them to go through the technical education required to do the work that's necessary. You can incentivize them, which is great, but do you want your government spending tax money providing incentives for people to do that?

As for forcing oil companies to conduct their business a certain way, you already know that's an idiotic suggestion. Even if you had some magic wand to wave that convinced them to spend billions on infrastructure, where are they going to get that money? Even oil companies (by the way most oil companies are mid-size, in the millions, not the billions) do not have that kind of money. They have to borrow it. Are you also going to force banks to lend them the money to do this? Having already established that it's not viable from a business perspective?

It's not like you're the first person to suggest increasing our refining capacity. In fact, it WILL increase, but gradually. In the meantime, projects like Keystone XL and Northern Gateway are a HUGE boost to the economy in a difficult time and consequently are good for the country you live in. You guys take that country for granted. This is a better place to live than a lot of places, and the reason is not that we're more enlightened or have a better sense of democratic values. It's because we're resource rich.
Feb 4 2012 5:51PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,141
Um, no, I don't work for an oil company.
Feb 4 2012 5:52PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12752 - Karma: 32,264
You're saying exactly what I'm saying.

We can't predict.

But you're saying because we can't predict it's a great idea to exploit all we can?

I'm saying because we can't predict why not be a bit more cautious with what we have and not focus completely on profit in the present.

Like you say, gradual change is great. So why not take the extra year or two on all these projects and gain a bit more insight into the possible consequences.


That fearmonger in the back seat of the car driving 180 down the highway might be the person to save the people in the car.
Feb 4 2012 5:53PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12752 - Karma: 32,264
Really? I was under the impression you were a lawyer for one.

In a thread a politics thread a little while ago you said something that eluded to that.

Never mind then.
Feb 4 2012 5:54PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,141
Oh, and VinnieF, the reason Canada imports oil is because the Eastern provinces kind of have to - it's less expensive to get oil from elsewhere (over the Atlantic) than it is to ship it all the way from Western Canada. If you want Eastern provinces to be forced to buy Alberta oil, the Alberta oil companies will be all for it, but it will result in people in Quebec and the maritimes especially paying way way more for gas. As oil prices rise there will likely be more oil sent from AB to the eastern part of the country. This is already starting to happen.

That being said, this is all interconnected. As companies make money selling oil to the US and China they are able to increase production capacity, which not only leads to investment in greater refining capacity but also more oil sold at home.
Feb 4 2012 6:00PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12752 - Karma: 32,264
But mining it and sending it thousands of miles to the US for refining makes makes sense? The only difference is one place it's the US. The other is Canada. Labour costs must be very close to on par in both places.

And yes, they are ours. The land your parents live on is still Canadian, the resources that the company have bought rights to is still just as Canadian.
Feb 4 2012 6:00PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,141
www.blakes.com

Decidedly not an oil company... though I know lots of people who do work for oil companies and I have nothing against the idea of doing so at some point if I got a good offer.
Feb 4 2012 6:04PM
0 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,122
This is such an ignorant statement. First of all our current infrastructure is still fine to meet current demand and the demand for quite a few years to come.

The oil sands will inevitably continue grow, and yes they are creating a massive amount jobs in Alberta. Don't kid yourself though, the majority of the money is not staying in Canada. Canada is completely fucking up right now. The oil companies are literally doing the bare minimum to get the oil out of the ground and out of our country here. We for the most part strip mine it, upgrade it to synthetic crude and pump it out to other countries who will turn it into a useful product.

This thread is not about the oil sands though. It is about the northern gateway. Not enough research has been done yet on how this project will affect the environment. There is lots of evidence that proposed pipeline will not be suitable for the transport of the highly sulfuric shit we are sending out. There are alternatives, but Enbridge will not consider them.

Sure it might put some money into our pockets, but really at what expense? Most BC residents will agree that the limited economical benefits are not worth the uncertainty at the moment. This is what we need to know before we do this. Trust me man this outrage is not just based on "cute little animals"
Feb 4 2012 6:13PM
0 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,122
not even true. BC gets all the risk. Multinational oil companies get almost all the money.
Feb 4 2012 6:17PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,141
It's not about energy independence in the 21st century either but people keep bringing it up.

There is no pipeline yet. In order for there to be a pipeline, these issued have to be resolved before a joint review panel which is subject to the NEB's jurisdiction. In other words, Enbridge will have to prove that its plan will meet the highest standards for safety and minimize to the greatest extent possible any environmental impacts. There is a regulatory process at play here that ensures that the company which wants to build an interprovincial line must consider alternatives wherever this panel, having been presented with painstakingly detailed analysis, says they have to. Otherwise, nothing is getting built.

And that's fantastic.  No one (well, at least not me) is saying full steam ahead and let's get this built next year. The approval process is important, oversight is important, and those things will occur. People's view seems to be that some corporate baron is tearing down trees and polluting rivers and streams without anyone able to control how they do it. The people opposing this thing aren't saying "okay, we need to make sure that the pipeline is constructed in such a way as to minimize environmental risks now and in the future", they're saying "don't build it, period", and telling stories, usually set to music and accompanied by pictures of fuzzy creatures to tug on peoples' heartstrings. That is not reality.
Feb 4 2012 6:22PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,141
Well workers get something like 50 billion in the aggregate, and Canada as a whole gets probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of 100 billion in tax revenue... and as stated between 250-300 billion of increased GDP during my working life, so I feel like I'm getting something out of this too... not that that's even CLOSE to being exhaustive. But sure, oil companies are the only ones getting well.

What risk is BC getting here? Risk of a spill? Ok, well, oil companies and their insurers are on the hook for just about all of that risk, and the oil companies also bear reputational risk and the attendant increase in premiums. So what risk? BC residents aren't getting downside business risk. There's a 100% chance upon approval of BC businesses and the BC government by extension raking in a ridiculous amount of money.

See I don't understand how it's reasonable in anyone's mind to just throw out sentences like this that are absolutely meaningless and expect them to have any value in a discussion.
Feb 4 2012 6:28PM
0 0
profile picture
geteducated
Posts: 6410 - Karma: 86
this isn't true. relative to our renewable supply, not standing water, we have as much as the united states. i know this supports your point even more, but i want people to stop thinking this way so that they will stop taking water in this country for granted.
Feb 4 2012 6:36PM
0 0
profile picture
geteducated
Posts: 6410 - Karma: 86
another thing, if the boats do go into kitimat, they will likely, and I HOPE, that they have pilots board the tankers to navigate those straits. i know they do that in victoria when a large ship comes down the juan de fuca. they drive the pilot out on the boat and the pilot drives the boat to vancouver. after hearing the stories of tankers out on the pacific ocean from fishermen, i would NOT want those people at the helm going through our water ways.
Feb 4 2012 6:38PM
0 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,122
Except in this case the oil companies are trying (and succeeding) to exclude many environmental groups and individuals from the NEB process in order to speed things up.

A lot of people who oppose this ARE saying we need to make sure the pipeline is constructed in a way to minimize environmental risks. This is NOT being done though and every aspect of the project from the route taken, to the actual type of pipeline used needs to be changed before we will be happy. At the current moment the northern gateway is basically the cheapest and fastest way enbridge can build a pipeline across BC and that needs to change.
Feb 4 2012 6:58PM
0 0
profile picture
mowdapow
Posts: 223 - Karma: 48
Spills happen, it's inevitable. Don't think that Enbridge not wanting a spill means there won't be any spills. They've had over 800 in the last 11 years, I'm sure they didn't want any of those to happen either. Not to mention the remoteness of the area this pipe will travel through, I know that when the PNG pipelines in the area get taken out in the winter it can takes days or weeks to access it. And then theres the additional risk with the hundreds of oil tankers now travelling through the channel. And who wins here? Not BC, most of the economic benifits are going to be for alberta. This pipeline is good for the oil industry only, and the conservative government getting their balls scratched by those oil companies.
Feb 4 2012 8:39PM
0 0
profile picture
Black.Bird
Posts: 2566 - Karma: 684
You are completely right in everything you said. Why export crude at a cheap price when you can refine it before exporting it?
You can export it at a much higher price and create jobs. Same goes with the iron rich mines in Quebec, the iron ore gets exported to PITTSBURGH to get processed into steel. Why can't Canada keep everything and do all the refining ourselves? They closed an oil refinery in Montreal not too long ago. But we export crude.
Feb 4 2012 9:14PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,141
Haha dude... this is nonsense. I know people like to make a dramatic story about the corporate powerhouse trying to keep the little guy down but in order to be heard before the NEB or its affiliate bodies the requirement is pretty much that you have a pulse. As a result, these things are subject to immense delays not because the due diligence is being done to ensure a safer pipeline, but because some people who are opposed to it want to filibuster. I've done one of these for a power transmission line and it's unbelievable how obstructionist some people are.

The thing will be built so as long as the debate is over how it gets built, that's productive. To the extent that the construction methodology can change to reduce the likelihood of environmental damage and still be viable, that's worth doing for sure. There's a balance to be struck between efficiency in terms of not taking 20 years to build the line, minimizing risk and impact, and obviously cost. There's going to have to be a middle ground found on those issues.
Feb 4 2012 9:14PM
0 0
profile picture
geteducated
Posts: 6410 - Karma: 86
ya, environmentalists gotta show some flex. i'm all for sustainability, but i'm all for a good economy as well. one group telling the other group 'no, this is how it's going to be' is not the way to reach a solution.
Feb 4 2012 9:29PM
0 0
profile picture
WakeBakeFapNap
Posts: 258 - Karma: 28

in my opinion there are good and bad things for this project. the bad being obvs oil spills enviromental disaters etc but you all so have to consider what happens in when the oil dries up? BCs economy cant realy on a non renewable resource. sure oil my by the fuel of today but what happens when we sell it all, what are we gona do buy it back?. on the lus side the pipeline would bring jobs in construction but after that not many. and most of the money gained from the pipeline would go to embridge which is an american oil company. in stead of investing in oil why not invest in geothremal energy? my opinion is that the risk of the oil spill out weighs the positve things that the pipeline would bring

Feb 4 2012 10:33PM
0 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,122
It is absolutely not nonsense. I hear you say that this thing will be built so all the debate has to be about how to do it best. That is complete bullshit. People who outright don't want this thing built are just as valid as the companies that do want it.

The oil companies and even the pm himself are trying to make it seems like these people are just trying to lengthen the processes, but that could not be further from the truth. These people have very valid arguments and unlike you, do not think that the pipeline is inevitable. They still want to fight.
Feb 4 2012 10:33PM
0 0
profile picture
sherwood4099
Posts: 1173 - Karma: 22
Perfectly put... Especially the last line. But never mind he's 17 or something and his dad is on the hearing council.... So what do either of us know
Feb 4 2012 10:39PM
0 0
profile picture
sherwood4099
Posts: 1173 - Karma: 22
How can you guarantee there will be a spill. It really isn't as common as you greenery make it out to be, and Canadian and US companies maintain the highest standards in the world. Yes the risk is there but you act like the risk isn't worth the reward or possibly even that we shouldn't do it if there is any risk... That's why people are telling you, that you can't comprehend the big picture
Feb 4 2012 10:43PM
0 0
profile picture
angus_k_
Posts: 438 - Karma: 24
If the oil sands are producing so much, why are we not building refineries in Canada, closer to source?

I'm assuming its because companies like Enbridge and Cenovus already have refineries in the US and because its cheaper to move the oil than build new infrastructure?

Surely the Canadian government would incent them to refine in Canada?
Feb 4 2012 11:54PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)