| Author |
Topic |
Qualicum Beach, BC
Canada
1332 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2012 : 5:35 PM
|
Wouldn't shipping unrefined bitium (sp?) to the Gulf of Mexico be just as bad as shipping it to BC's coast?
I would think that refining it at it's source would be best economically and environmentally.
A CBC report stated that the proposed pipeline would move far more oil sands guck per year than Canada could use in a year. So what's wrong with just leaving it in the ground and only removing enough to meet our domestic needs? We could be independent of foreign oil for how long? And in the mean time we could develop greener sources of power.
Unfortunately we have both Federal and Provincial Governments that bow to the corporate altar and the corporate mandate is to make as much money for the shareholders as possible, first and foremost and at any cost.
We need some new political leaders that will serve the land and the people. Will Adrian Dix and Scott Fraser stand along side me in front of a bulldozer on the pipeline path? I hope so. |
|
|
Powell River, bc
Canada
2611 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2012 : 5:47 PM
|
Now that sounds like the best solution I've heard yet!! Bravo :)
I'll be standing there too!! |
|
|
|
Fowl photographin, animal lovin, thread trollin, dry bag humpin, canoe canoodler
Vancouver, BC
Canada
4043 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2012 : 11:29 PM
|
It has already become an old argument, one that economists and labour leaders have brought up time and time again. Why do we not refine our own resources? Here's the thing, "we" really means the oil and gas industry because they are the ones who would have to do it, and why dont they? Because the business of refining oil is at best, only a break even operation.
There is very little profit for the oil companies in refineries and applying for the permits to build them requires both environmental and economic reviews at both the federal and local levels, transportation costs and employment overhead, in other words a lot of hassle for very little profit.
Yes, it makes sense to refine oil domestically because unlike building pipelines, the refining process does create long term employment opportunities, it just doesn't make sense to the oil companies especially when they can pipe and ship the toxic sludge to other countries that have little or no environmental oversight and scads of cheap labour.
Anyway, energy policy is a very important conversation that everyone should engage in to some extent but lets keep the priority on stopping the pipeline by any and all means necessary because big oil doesn't give a shit what any of you think SHOULD be done and neither does Harper... am I wrong?
I want people to keep the focus on telling Harper and Enbridge what CANT be done instead... like building a bitumen pipeline through the worlds last and largest untouched expanse of temperate rain forest and then shipping it off via super tankers through one the most treacherous and sensitive marine eco systems left on earth.
Harper will just have to find a different empty threat to use on the Democratic Administration he cant stand down South.
|
|
|
|
Fowl photographin, animal lovin, thread trollin, dry bag humpin, canoe canoodler
Vancouver, BC
Canada
4043 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2012 : 02:17 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prother
Wouldn't shipping unrefined bitium (sp?) to the Gulf of Mexico be just as bad as shipping it to BC's coast?
No I don't think it would be the same at all because the route to reach Gulf of Mexico is a very accessible and heavily populated region of the continent with many pipelines and off shore drilling rigs already in use. By contrast the British Columbia forests, mountain ranges and rugged coastline are extremely INaccessible, very sparsely populated and largely untouched. (That is why it contains the densest concentration of terrestrial and marine life on the planet.)
We have already seen how safe and well maintained pipelines around the Gulf of Mexico are, and just how long they can be left to gush gunk well after even BIG ruptures. Given that region's relative ease of access, it is more than scary to wonder how long a rupture in the middle of a glacial coastal mountain range would be be left to gush poison before it was discovered and actually fixed? When it DOES leak in the coastal mountains the legacy of every subsequent summer snow melt would be the leaching of ever more poison down the mountain sides and into rivers that salmon spawn in and bear, bird and wolf feed from, ultimately going into our coastal waters and the whole fucking food chain.
What is the current rate of cancer in the peoples of the Athabaska waterway anywhere near tar sands country? Why have they had to stop eating fish for the first time in their history?
quote:
A CBC report stated that the proposed pipeline would move far more oil sands guck per year than Canada could use in a year. So what's wrong with just leaving it in the ground and only removing enough to meet our domestic needs? We could be independent of foreign oil for how long? And in the mean time we could develop greener sources of power.
A wonderful idea, unfortunately the last Conservative government in Canada signed away our right to do that in NAFTA. Remember the guy who was caught taking envelops of cash in restaurants from corporate lobbyists? Well... one of the more clever details of NAFTA is this cute little provision called the 'proportionality clause' which basically reserves Canadian energy production for the US's "strategic reserves". If Canada wants to lower the amount of oil it exports to the US it must lower the amount it consumes domestically first, the idea was to ensure Canada couldn't suddenly reduce it's energy exports to the US without 'proportionally' doing the same to ourselves. Mexico refused to sign off on this clause so it applies only to Canada... thanks very much all you conservative voters out there ;)
quote:
Unfortunately we have both Federal and Provincial Governments that bow to the corporate altar and the corporate mandate is to make as much money for the shareholders as possible, first and foremost and at any cost.
We need some new political leaders that will serve the land and the people. Will Adrian Dix and Scott Fraser stand along side me in front of a bulldozer on the pipeline path? I hope so.
I agree and yes, I'll stand with you in front of that bulldozer...! |
|
|
Maple Ridge, BC
Canada
359 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2012 : 1:14 PM
|
| I decided to email my MLA. I suggest you folks condense the arguments made here and do the same. As monster said, there are numerous issues about energy policy this may bring to mind, but it would benefit us all immensely to focus on simply rejecting this particular proposal. If anyone is curious, I can post my email in case you're having a hard time deciding how to approach it and need inspiration. |
|
|
North Vancouver, BC
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2012 : 5:54 PM
|
Looking at the track record for the pipeline people you have to wonder at the politicians who actually still consider this a viable option. The pipeline does not provide a lot of ongoing jobs ( ain't BC labour building the pipeline ) and only 40-50 people with permanent work at the port.
|
|
|
Vancouver, bc
Canada
1032 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2012 : 7:38 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Monster
quote:
Originally posted by prother
Wouldn't shipping unrefined bitium (sp?) to the Gulf of Mexico be just as bad as shipping it to BC's coast?
No I don't think it would be the same at all because the route to reach Gulf of Mexico is a very accessible and heavily populated region of the continent with many pipelines and off shore drilling rigs already in use. By contrast the British Columbia forests, mountain ranges and rugged coastline are extremely INaccessible, very sparsely populated and largely untouched. (That is why it contains the densest concentration of terrestrial and marine life on the planet.)
We have already seen how safe and well maintained pipelines around the Gulf of Mexico are, and just how long they can be left to gush gunk well after even BIG ruptures. Given that region's relative ease of access, it is more than scary to wonder how long a rupture in the middle of a glacial coastal mountain range would be be left to gush poison before it was discovered and actually fixed? When it DOES leak in the coastal mountains the legacy of every subsequent summer snow melt would be the leaching of ever more poison down the mountain sides and into rivers that salmon spawn in and bear, bird and wolf feed from, ultimately going into our coastal waters and the whole fucking food chain.
What is the current rate of cancer in the peoples of the Athabaska waterway anywhere near tar sands country? Why have they had to stop eating fish for the first time in their history?
quote:
A CBC report stated that the proposed pipeline would move far more oil sands guck per year than Canada could use in a year. So what's wrong with just leaving it in the ground and only removing enough to meet our domestic needs? We could be independent of foreign oil for how long? And in the mean time we could develop greener sources of power.
A wonderful idea, unfortunately the last Conservative government in Canada signed away our right to do that in NAFTA. Remember the guy who was caught taking envelops of cash in restaurants from corporate lobbyists? Well... one of the more clever details of NAFTA is this cute little provision called the 'proportionality clause' which basically reserves Canadian energy production for the US's "strategic reserves". If Canada wants to lower the amount of oil it exports to the US it must lower the amount it consumes domestically first, the idea was to ensure Canada couldn't suddenly reduce it's energy exports to the US without 'proportionally' doing the same to ourselves. Mexico refused to sign off on this clause so it applies only to Canada... thanks very much all you conservative voters out there ;)
quote:
Unfortunately we have both Federal and Provincial Governments that bow to the corporate altar and the corporate mandate is to make as much money for the shareholders as possible, first and foremost and at any cost.
We need some new political leaders that will serve the land and the people. Will Adrian Dix and Scott Fraser stand along side me in front of a bulldozer on the pipeline path? I hope so.
I agree and yes, I'll stand with you in front of that bulldozer...!
Spent time a few weeks ago in Heelboom Bay reconstructing a trail to the Meares Island's Big Tree Trail - site of the Clayoquot 1984 standoff, and was reminded of what it might take to stifle the pipe. |
|
|
28 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2012 : 09:23 AM
|
I'm not in agreement with the pipeline, but the reason raw oil is shipped and refined in far off places is because when you refine the oil you get many other products other than just gasoline. Oil is used for more than just gas or diesel and is refined many different ways. To refine it here and then ship it you would need many different pipelines for all the products made.
To ship gasoline via train is a non- starter, as it is much less safe and not nearly as efficent as via pipeline.
Hopefully this pipeline becomes just a bad idea, not a reality. |
|
|
Kamloops, B.C.
Canada
160 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2012 : 09:43 AM
|
| And now to add to the fun Kinder-Morgan wants to double the capacity out of the port of Vancouver. The article claimed a new pipeline would be needed, that I believe is mistaken. They have been upgrading the pipeline by increasing the size of the pipe. At any rate instead of one tanker per week, could be one a day. |
|
|
|
opinionated-stove huggin'-fleece wearin'-arse burnin' hill virgin
Here
Canada
4643 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2012 : 11:36 AM
|
| The explanation that we need to ship unrefined oil offshore to China because we don't have a market for refined products here is just lame. As long as we're importing gasoline and airline fuel from the USA and oil from the middle east, we're not getting the most out of our own resources. Why anyone would have something against producing long term jobs here and potentially lowering the prices of gas at the pump and everything else that depends on gas for shipping, is a complete mystery to me. These oil companies are not only exploiting our resources and environment, they are exploiting our people. These resources are our legacy and if the oil companies don't want to co-operate, perhaps it's time to nationalize some of them again or at least make it even more uncomfortable to business here until they do. |
|
|
|
Fowl photographin, animal lovin, thread trollin, dry bag humpin, canoe canoodler
Vancouver, BC
Canada
4043 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2012 : 3:25 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by omegarun
And now to add to the fun Kinder-Morgan wants to double the capacity out of the port of Vancouver. The article claimed a new pipeline would be needed, that I believe is mistaken. They have been upgrading the pipeline by increasing the size of the pipe. At any rate instead of one tanker per week, could be one a day.
Ya know it occurred to me yesterday that maybe... just maybe...
What if Harper and Company never really intended for Northern Gateway pipeline to go through, but simply proposed that route because it was just such a preposterous idea to ship bitumen though one of the most sensitive ecological regions of the country that he'd allow the environmental outrage to blow it's wad on that plan just so later on he could say "Ok, I wont push it through that region after all, I'll ship through Vancouver or up North instead."
The idea being that he could use the threat against the US administration while the evaluation process carries on and that once the plan is killed, the BC public could happily declare victory and accept what ever alternative routing was chosen as fair compromise (Vancouver or other).
One might ask why Harper and his geniuses wouldn't have simply proposed an alternative like Vancouver, Washington or California in the first place? The answer is because shipping bitumen through a pipeline is a guarantee of highly toxic spills and consequently a highly motivated opposition no matter what route is chosen. A palusable ruse like the Northern Gateway pipeline could serve two causes, one by providing the public a means to vent and perceive victory and the other to threaten Congress and the White House to stop labeling Tar Sands product "dirty oil".
Harper and the oil industry aren't that Machiavellian...? Ya right! We've already heard a federal cabinet minster come out and suggest that the NG pipeline might not have to go through the North Coast and as noted above, Kinder Morgan upgrades seem to be already underway. Listen for whispers of railway transport over the next few months, if we hear it... Northern Gateway may well turn out to have been nothing but a ruse. |
|
|
|
Outward Bound author of the Seinfeld Thread, who builds his own snowshoes
Troy, MT
USA
3140 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2012 : 4:55 PM
|
I would be 100% happy if you are correct Monster. Someone needs to do something to rule in the US gov't, EPA, et. al.
I'm not sure how far along this is in the permitting process, but it could also make the new permitting regulations more appealing to those outside of industry if that process were to turn this down.
Sounds like something I wish I'd thought up |
|
|
Burnaby, BC
Canada
667 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2012 : 7:55 PM
|
Ant one know how many jobs are on the line if this thing doesn't go through? thousands!
I for one am against the pipeline. Why? because of the chance there could be an oil spill or a pipeline rupture causing huge damage to our environment.
I for one am for the pipe line. why? because of the jobs and financial growth our country can gain from this project.
Could there be a middle ground? for sure. why not. How about insuring the safety standards are met over and above! how about using smaller ships to transfer oil and gas to the bigger ships off shore.
There are so many people heading up north to make a very good living that will loose their jobs if it is stopped.
So. is it possible to find a middle ground where there could be a pipeline and a green peace agreement to?
Yea I know.. every one is going to want to rub their hairy fists on my face now. :) but lets face it. It is happening as we speak. the pipe is being laid out. Facilities are being built in Kitimat and every one is posturing in their political corners. |
Edited by - MatthewBaldwin on 08/06/2012 8:07 PM |
|
|
Salmon Arm, BC
Canada
900 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2012 : 3:41 PM
|
I am now convinced that Northern Gateway approval process is completely rigged. Stealin' Harper has now fixed it so that he and his anti-environment, corporate-welfare-loving Conservative cabinet has the last say, no matter what. And it's a foregone conclusion that he'll say yes. Doesn't matter what the people of BC say or the First Nations. Doesn't matter how bad Enbridge's track record of spills and corporate incompetence is. Doesn't matter what the environmental review may conclude. Doesn't matter what NEB might recommend....The environmental review process has been "streamlined" with a lot less scrutiny. Fisheries Act and other environmental legislation have been gutted, and the enforcement staff have been decimated and castrated.
By the end of 2014 Harper will give the go-ahead to Enbridge. No matter what. So much for democracy. |
Edited by - pmjwright on 08/07/2012 4:14 PM |
|
|
Salmon Arm, BC
Canada
900 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2012 : 3:55 PM
|
Now, as for Kinder Morgan, I'm a lot less concerned for a number of reasons. One being that the pipeline has been there for 60 years, expansion would be just like 4-laning an existing highway. Another reason--good track record, very few spills along the pipeline (just one unlucky excavator operator reading a lousy map!) and no tanker spills in the Port in a century of tanker traffic. Excellent shiphandling in the port with 2 pilots, 3 escort tugs etc. Good spill response resources in the port, and more available at nearby ports and navy bases in BC and US.
Here's another reason KM may be better: it has the potential to deliver lots of bitumen to the Washington refineries, maybe replacing crude that right now comes down from Alaska and from all over the world. Net result may actually be LESS tankers passing through Juan de Fuca Strait than there are right now.
If we really think this through and do it right, it is conceivable that the KM expansion could result in replacing ALL the offshore crude currently being imported into Washington... maybe even California too. Then all the tankers from Alaska would be sent direct to Asia, they're no longer cruising down our coast. There's enough demand from the refineries on the Pacific Coast that maybe NONE of the Alberta bitumen needs to be shipped out of ANY BC harbour. With this scenario, there would be way less tanker traffic on the BC coast than at present.
I know that's not the way this will likely play out, but it's something we could argue for. After all, if all we do is protest the increased tanker traffic out of Vancouver, KM might just build a new terminal south of the border and ship the bitumen from there. Sure, less risk for Burrard Inlet, but ultimately it's the same risk to the Salish Sea, so what do we gain from that? |
Edited by - pmjwright on 08/07/2012 4:03 PM |
|
|
|
Outward Bound author of the Seinfeld Thread, who builds his own snowshoes
Troy, MT
USA
3140 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2012 : 3:56 PM
|
| Because doing everything twice, with no definite timetables was such a better idea? |
|
|
Salmon Arm, BC
Canada
900 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2012 : 4:09 PM
|
I'm not at all hung up on the timetable thing. I'm hung up on the sham that the environmental review process has become, after the CONServatives gutted the process and other environmental laws. I'm hung up on how they have cleared the path in advance so that NOrthern Gateway will pass, regardless.
If the process is meaningless, then having or not having a timetable is moot.
As for "doing everything twice", I agree that duplicate reviews are excessive bureaucracy, especially seeing as all but one project (Prosperity Mine) got approved by both processes. But I don't recall ever hearing that there would have been a separate provincial review of NOrthern Gateway. It was always a Federal review.
|
Edited by - pmjwright on 08/07/2012 4:15 PM |
|
|
|
Outward Bound author of the Seinfeld Thread, who builds his own snowshoes
Troy, MT
USA
3140 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2012 : 4:22 PM
|
I don't know the details of a pipelines review process, but the purpose of the streamlined review process that we have been begging the government to put together for year, and was recommended by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Red Chris court case had to do with setting definite timelines (the mine I'm currently working at owns the 4th biggest Ag deposit on earth, and the US gov't has had it tied up in permitting since '82) and removing the duplication (ie cost to taxpayers) that was part of the old process. If a project has good science behind it that shows the project is economically justifiable, environmentally sound and socially responsible, there is no reason it should not go forward.
I'm fairly certain that NO ONE on this board really know the science behind this pipeline. I probably shouldn't have been so quick to support it, and others shouldn't be so quick as to deem it evil. I believe that the review process WILL do it's job.
I still maintain that the best way to stop this pipeline would be to force that dumbass in the whitehouse obama to at least look at the pipeline proposal to the gulf. There has to be a way to sell our oil, so why not sell it to the country with the strictest enviro regs in the world, our biggest trading partner, and a democracy, rather than to communists with a terrible track record? |
|
|
|
Fowl photographin, animal lovin, thread trollin, dry bag humpin, canoe canoodler
Vancouver, BC
Canada
4043 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2012 : 10:41 PM
|
Why do people actually believe we need to ship bitumen to China? It really is a bad idea, the US will purchase all the crap that can be pulled out of that boreal forest turned toxic wasteland and their concerns around better management and cleaner extraction processes absolutely should be addressed sooner than later.
|
|
|
|
Outdoors addicted flyfishing, skiing, snowshoeing, hiking car crooner and resident motormouth
Da'Wack, BC
Canada
5378 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2012 : 09:17 AM
|
From Mr. Suzuki:
quote:
Dear Friends,
Canada is at a turning point. Do we want to continue our dependence on climate-altering fossil fuels? Or do we want cleaner, safer renewables?
It’s important that as many people as possible add their voices to this important discussion. Please take a moment to:
1. Add your voice to the growing movement against pipelines and supertankers carrying toxics through our pristine forests and waterways. Tell your elected leaders that deepening our dependence on fossil fuels is backwards and that you want a national energy strategy that values the environment. 2. Register your opinion with the National Energy Board Joint Review Committee on the Enbridge Northern Gateway project website. Hearings on the project will continue into 2013, but the deadline for public comment is August 31, 2012.
People and communities along the route depend on clean, healthy ecosystems for their personal health and their livelihoods. Pipeline leaks and oil-tanker spills are inevitable. No amount of short-term financial gain can replace what we stand to lose.
Let’s ask our leaders for a national energy strategy that values the environment.
The David Suzuki Foundation Team
P.S. Please forward this email to your friends and ask them to have their say on Northern Gateway and Canada’s energy future before August 31.
http://gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc.ca/efile/LetterOfComment.aspx |
Edited by - exscape on 08/09/2012 09:20 AM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Enbridge Pipeline
