Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 401 to 460 of 460

Thread: Are you boycotting BC?

  1. #401
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,868

    Default

    Just came across this link while searching for double hull accidents. Seems to have a lot of interesting information, although I haven't done a lot of looking in to who is behind it: https://clearseas.org/en/tankers/

    Tankers currently represent about 2% of total ship traffic visiting the Port of Vancouver (out of 250 total vessels per month, about 5 are tankers). The Government of Canadaís recent approval of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project is expected to increase the number of tankers visiting the Port of Vancouver from around 5 to around 34 per month. In this scenario, tankers would represent about 14% of total ship traffic.
    This graph I also thought interesting:


  2. #402
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,868

    Default

    Also quite relevant:

    Overall, 67% of ship-source oil spills in Canadian waters from 2003 to 2012 were between 100 and 1,000 litres. Of the larger spills (those 10,000 litres or greater), 78% involved fuel oil rather than oil being carried as cargo. As such, oil tanker cargo was not the source of most of these spill.
    So why are people not protesting the bulk carriers, tug boats, and fuel barges that are responsible for most of the petroleum products spilled in Canadian waters? Why are they not demanding the reduction of other forms of shipping?

  3. #403

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Well said. I'm genuinely curious what percentage of total shipping noise is currently attributable to oil tankers, and what it would be if the pipeline were built. Are NEB hearings required for the increases in agricultural/lumber shipping? Container shipping? Vancouver's an incredibly busy port, I would be surprised if oil shipments represent even a tenth of the total shipping, either currently or theoretically with the expansion.

    That doesn't mean that Transmountain should get a free pass. But nor should anything else.
    Whatever the burden of current shipping in the area is, the incremental burden created by Trans Mountain needs to be considered separately. And the NEB has already concluded that the burden would be significant (their words and their emphasis).

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    So what steps are being taken to reduce other shipping traffic in the area in order to lessen pressure on the southern residents and other species?
    That's an important question but separate to the impact of Trans Mountain.

  4. #404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    East McCauley's comment was about probability of a spill, not the impact of one. And the NEB quote you provided indicates much the same, saying the probability is low (although not "virtually non-existent").

    When was the last major spill from a double hull oil tanker? I'm genuinely curious. And how often are there much smaller spills of bunker fuel and intentional dumping of polluted bilge water from ships other than oil tankers?
    The NEB concluded that the net effect of combining risk and impact is that the "operation of Project-related marine vessels would likely result in significant adverse effects to the Southern resident killer whale."

    No idea when the last major spill was. However, the absence of spills could indicate that the safeguards in place are working. That would argue against ignoring those safeguards now for the benefit of Trans Mountain (as the NEB (despite their own assessment indicating the contrary), the Liberals, and the Alberta NDP, would have us do).

  5. #405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Well said. I'm genuinely curious what percentage of total shipping noise is currently attributable to oil tankers, and what it would be if the pipeline were built. Are NEB hearings required for the increases in agricultural/lumber shipping? Container shipping? Vancouver's an incredibly busy port, I would be surprised if oil shipments represent even a tenth of the total shipping, either currently or theoretically with the expansion.

    That doesn't mean that Transmountain should get a free pass. But nor should anything else.
    Whatever the burden of current shipping in the area is, the incremental burden created by Trans Mountain needs to be considered separately. And the NEB has already concluded that the burden would be significant (their words and their emphasis).
    (bold italics by me)

    No, they don't need to be considered separately. The ocean risks that apply to all shipping are completely separate from Transmountain. The assessment should include the direct risks of the pipeline and the particular risks of shipping crude or dilbit, not the risks of general shipping.

    if the risk of an additional few ships a month is so great then to be fair you have to apply the same rules to any other ship in shoes waters. either shut 'em all down, let 'em all go, set strict rules they all have to abide, or you set a cap that's agnostic of which ships they are and make all shippers bid for the limited number of slots. Surely they could free up some slots below the orca-damage threshold by ceasing shipments of American thermal coal?
    There can only be one.

  6. #406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    East McCauley's comment was about probability of a spill, not the impact of one. And the NEB quote you provided indicates much the same, saying the probability is low (although not "virtually non-existent").

    When was the last major spill from a double hull oil tanker? I'm genuinely curious. And how often are there much smaller spills of bunker fuel and intentional dumping of polluted bilge water from ships other than oil tankers?
    The NEB concluded that the net effect of combining risk and impact is that the "operation of Project-related marine vessels would likely result in significant adverse effects to the Southern resident killer whale."

    No idea when the last major spill was. However, the absence of spills could indicate that the safeguards in place are working. That would argue against ignoring those safeguards now for the benefit of Trans Mountain (as the NEB (despite their own assessment indicating the contrary), the Liberals, and the Alberta NDP, would have us do).
    You seem to be implying that pro pipeline governments and bodies are somehow advocating that we start shipping oil using single-hull tankers exempt from safety and environmental rules and safeguards. That's crazy talk.

    Instead, the argument is that technologies and operations that are in place allow safe operation, so let's allow (continued) operation under those conditions to be assessed on the actual operations and not based on some imagined conditions where drunk captains of rusted single-hulls are facing pirates in the Juan de Fuca Strait
    There can only be one.

  7. #407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Well said. I'm genuinely curious what percentage of total shipping noise is currently attributable to oil tankers, and what it would be if the pipeline were built. Are NEB hearings required for the increases in agricultural/lumber shipping? Container shipping? Vancouver's an incredibly busy port, I would be surprised if oil shipments represent even a tenth of the total shipping, either currently or theoretically with the expansion.

    That doesn't mean that Transmountain should get a free pass. But nor should anything else.
    Whatever the burden of current shipping in the area is, the incremental burden created by Trans Mountain needs to be considered separately. And the NEB has already concluded that the burden would be significant (their words and their emphasis).
    (bold italics by me)

    No, they don't need to be considered separately. The ocean risks that apply to all shipping are completely separate from Transmountain. The assessment should include the direct risks of the pipeline and the particular risks of shipping crude or dilbit, not the risks of general shipping.
    When I said the risks should be considered separately I meant exactly what you just said: that the "assessment (of Trans Mountain) should include the direct risks of the pipeline and the particular risks of shipping crude or dilbit, not the risks of general shipping." Some other process can deal separately with the risks of general shipping.

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    if the risk of an additional few ships a month is so great then to be fair you have to apply the same rules to any other ship in shoes waters. either shut 'em all down, let 'em all go, set strict rules they all have to abide, or you set a cap that's agnostic of which ships they are and make all shippers bid for the limited number of slots. Surely they could free up some slots below the orca-damage threshold by ceasing shipments of American thermal coal?
    The risks for tankers are demonstrably larger than for other vessels so the same rules do not apply universally. Moreover, it's not "an additional few ships per month", it's an additional 30 or so tankers per month which would mean Trans Mountain tankers by themselves would represent fully 14% of all of the Port of Vancouver's marine traffic (source). That's why the NEB concluded the risks of Trans Mountain are so significant.

  8. #408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    You seem to be implying that pro pipeline governments and bodies are somehow advocating that we start shipping oil using single-hull tankers exempt from safety and environmental rules and safeguards. That's crazy talk.

    Instead, the argument is that technologies and operations that are in place allow safe operation, so let's allow (continued) operation under those conditions to be assessed on the actual operations and not based on some imagined conditions where drunk captains of rusted single-hulls are facing pirates in the Juan de Fuca Strait
    The NEB in their own assessment refuted that argument saying that the risk is significant. Again, that's not my opinion, that's the opinion of the NEB based upon submissions by multiple parties including Trans Mountain themselves. Go ahead and read it for yourself.

    https://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/docu...61/114562E.pdf

    For some reason the NEB chose to ignore their own assessment when issuing their approval; the Federal Court of Appeal was appropriately unimpressed by this omission.

  9. #409
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    *Bump*

    In light of all the controversy of the TMP, what is the satus with this project?


    https://business.financialpost.com/c...ever-get-built



    Going nowhere fast. Besides being vastly under-capitalized it's basically dead on arrival thanks to this:

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tru...mons-1.4655077
    BC doesn't have a problem with dumping raw sewage into the ocean but applauds Bill C-46?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  10. #410
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    ^^ it is the exact approach the bill that pushed the HVDC lines through the province. They called it critical infrastructure.

    For the most part, companies play OK ball. The problem comes when, like ATCO/Valard/APL, they don't play ball or have incentives that allow them to cut corners...and no one in the government has the spine, will, or are somehow prevented from enforcing the flowery language of promise.

    All it takes is one malcontent corporation. The damage done affects all.
    In this case, Northern Gateway could go through because it has a lot of backing from FN groups. The very same thing that the NEB said put TMP on hold. Trudeau seemed to "have forgotten" about NG, which is 3 times the project TMP would have been. Again its all about the $
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  11. #411
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    You seem to be implying that pro pipeline governments and bodies are somehow advocating that we start shipping oil using single-hull tankers exempt from safety and environmental rules and safeguards. That's crazy talk.

    Instead, the argument is that technologies and operations that are in place allow safe operation, so let's allow (continued) operation under those conditions to be assessed on the actual operations and not based on some imagined conditions where drunk captains of rusted single-hulls are facing pirates in the Juan de Fuca Strait
    The NEB in their own assessment refuted that argument saying that the risk is significant. Again, that's not my opinion, that's the opinion of the NEB based upon submissions by multiple parties including Trans Mountain themselves. Go ahead and read it for yourself.

    https://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/docu...61/114562E.pdf

    For some reason the NEB chose to ignore their own assessment when issuing their approval; the Federal Court of Appeal was appropriately unimpressed by this omission.
    i'm not sure the neb's conclusion is that the risks are significant although it is certainly stated that some of them are cumulative. as i understand it, it is the potential consequences that could be significant, not the risk.

    the consequences of my being hit by a car while crossing the street could well be significant. that doesn't mean that my risk of being hit by a car while crossing the street is significant. and neither of those things means that there shouldn't be rules and regulations regarding crossing the street that need to be identified and adhered to in order to minimize the risk as much as possible and to mitigate the potential damages as much as possible.

    at some point, if anyone is going to be able to cross the street for any reason, we will be accepting both the risks and the potential consequences both as a society and as individuals. we do that in a variety of ways including everything from vehicle design to developing laws and control devices and minding them... or we accept as a society and as individuals that no one will ever cross the street because the risk and the potential consequences - however unlikely - will never be zero.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  12. #412

    Default

    But "We" aren't accepting the risks and the consequences. We're asking other people to accept the risks and consequences of our actions. And yes, since natural resources are a provincial responsibility, it is "we" are asking "them". And if or when there is a major spill, "they" will be the ones paying the price. Not just part of the financial costs but the price of a damaged ecosystem, lost tourism, dead wildlife, etc.

  13. #413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    ^^ it is the exact approach the bill that pushed the HVDC lines through the province. They called it critical infrastructure.

    For the most part, companies play OK ball. The problem comes when, like ATCO/Valard/APL, they don't play ball or have incentives that allow them to cut corners...and no one in the government has the spine, will, or are somehow prevented from enforcing the flowery language of promise.

    All it takes is one malcontent corporation. The damage done affects all.
    In this case, Northern Gateway could go through because it has a lot of backing from FN groups. The very same thing that the NEB said put TMP on hold. Trudeau seemed to "have forgotten" about NG, which is 3 times the project TMP would have been. Again its all about the $
    You’re forgetting the lack of treaties issues in B.C.

  14. #414
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    But "We" aren't accepting the risks and the consequences. We're asking other people to accept the risks and consequences of our actions. And yes, since natural resources are a provincial responsibility, it is "we" are asking "them". And if or when there is a major spill, "they" will be the ones paying the price. Not just part of the financial costs but the price of a damaged ecosystem, lost tourism, dead wildlife, etc.
    no, it is “we”, just as we, collectively, accepted and continue to accept the risks and the consequences of the oil sands and hibernia and north sea and saudi arabian and venezuelan and gulf of mexico et al production and our shipment of oil therefrom to all corners of the globe by pipeline, tanker, rail and truck. because we, collectively, consume it by choice in all corners of the globe. should we? arguably not. but we do. should we stop? arguably. but until we actually have options enabling that, we are left with assessing risks and consequences and options as best we can.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  15. #415
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    But "We" aren't accepting the risks and the consequences. We're asking other people to accept the risks and consequences of our actions. And yes, since natural resources are a provincial responsibility, it is "we" are asking "them". And if or when there is a major spill, "they" will be the ones paying the price. Not just part of the financial costs but the price of a damaged ecosystem, lost tourism, dead wildlife, etc.
    KK why donít you go to work for green peace youíll fit right in there. I hear they pay well.

  16. #416
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    ^^ it is the exact approach the bill that pushed the HVDC lines through the province. They called it critical infrastructure.

    For the most part, companies play OK ball. The problem comes when, like ATCO/Valard/APL, they don't play ball or have incentives that allow them to cut corners...and no one in the government has the spine, will, or are somehow prevented from enforcing the flowery language of promise.

    All it takes is one malcontent corporation. The damage done affects all.
    In this case, Northern Gateway could go through because it has a lot of backing from FN groups. The very same thing that the NEB said put TMP on hold. Trudeau seemed to "have forgotten" about NG, which is 3 times the project TMP would have been. Again its all about the $
    Evo I think you and I are the only ones that read your article in its entirety. It sound like they could put that one through. They have all their ducks in a row. Just a few court cases, nothing serious for First Nations, the courts will side with them.

  17. #417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    i'm not sure the neb's conclusion is that the risks are significant although it is certainly stated that some of them are cumulative. as i understand it, it is the potential consequences that could be significant, not the risk.

    the consequences of my being hit by a car while crossing the street could well be significant. that doesn't mean that my risk of being hit by a car while crossing the street is significant. and neither of those things means that there shouldn't be rules and regulations regarding crossing the street that need to be identified and adhered to in order to minimize the risk as much as possible and to mitigate the potential damages as much as possible.

    at some point, if anyone is going to be able to cross the street for any reason, we will be accepting both the risks and the potential consequences both as a society and as individuals. we do that in a variety of ways including everything from vehicle design to developing laws and control devices and minding them... or we accept as a society and as individuals that no one will ever cross the street because the risk and the potential consequences - however unlikely - will never be zero.
    You are using risk to be equivalent to probability. However, risk when used in risk analysis includes both probability and consequence. This is the methodology used by the NEB in their assessment and, in fact, they even go so far as to include a nice little risk matrix in their report:


    The NEB categorized the risk to killer whales as having "low" probability but with consequences that are "potentially catastrophic" (page 398 of the report). So the overall risk to killer whales is high (it would fall into the orange "High R" square on the extreme right in the second row from bottom on their matrix).

  18. #418
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    i'm not sure the neb's conclusion is that the risks are significant although it is certainly stated that some of them are cumulative. as i understand it, it is the potential consequences that could be significant, not the risk.

    the consequences of my being hit by a car while crossing the street could well be significant. that doesn't mean that my risk of being hit by a car while crossing the street is significant. and neither of those things means that there shouldn't be rules and regulations regarding crossing the street that need to be identified and adhered to in order to minimize the risk as much as possible and to mitigate the potential damages as much as possible.

    at some point, if anyone is going to be able to cross the street for any reason, we will be accepting both the risks and the potential consequences both as a society and as individuals. we do that in a variety of ways including everything from vehicle design to developing laws and control devices and minding them... or we accept as a society and as individuals that no one will ever cross the street because the risk and the potential consequences - however unlikely - will never be zero.
    You are using risk to be equivalent to probability. However, risk when used in risk analysis includes both probability and consequence. This is the methodology used by the NEB in their assessment and, in fact, they even go so far as to include a nice little risk matrix in their report:


    The NEB categorized the risk to killer whales as having "low" probability but with consequences that are "potentially catastrophic" (page 398 of the report). So the overall risk to killer whales is high (it would fall into the orange "High R" square on the extreme right in the second row from bottom on their matrix).
    okay, i can accept that applying the language of the nebís matrix to my crossing the street would mean that the probability of my being hit by a car are very low, the consequences potentially high and the risk medium. iím less convinced however that thatís a sufficiently broad or inclusive analysis without applying it in a more layered fashion. by that i mean that while the probability for my being hit by a car crossing the street will have potentially high consequences for me, they will have lower consequences on my family, co-workers, neighbors, edmontonians, albertans, canadians, north americans, mankind... on that basis, presumably the risk would be lower the larger the group. by the same token, if all of one of those groups were to cross, presumably the probability would increase but the consequences would be divided over the entire group, also presumably resulting in a lower risk. or am i being too simplistic in concluding that individual risk and group risk are not equivalent and donít belong in the same matrix square?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  19. #419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    i'm not sure the neb's conclusion is that the risks are significant although it is certainly stated that some of them are cumulative. as i understand it, it is the potential consequences that could be significant, not the risk.

    the consequences of my being hit by a car while crossing the street could well be significant. that doesn't mean that my risk of being hit by a car while crossing the street is significant. and neither of those things means that there shouldn't be rules and regulations regarding crossing the street that need to be identified and adhered to in order to minimize the risk as much as possible and to mitigate the potential damages as much as possible.

    at some point, if anyone is going to be able to cross the street for any reason, we will be accepting both the risks and the potential consequences both as a society and as individuals. we do that in a variety of ways including everything from vehicle design to developing laws and control devices and minding them... or we accept as a society and as individuals that no one will ever cross the street because the risk and the potential consequences - however unlikely - will never be zero.
    You are using risk to be equivalent to probability. However, risk when used in risk analysis includes both probability and consequence. This is the methodology used by the NEB in their assessment and, in fact, they even go so far as to include a nice little risk matrix in their report:


    The NEB categorized the risk to killer whales as having "low" probability but with consequences that are "potentially catastrophic" (page 398 of the report). So the overall risk to killer whales is high (it would fall into the orange "High R" square on the extreme right in the second row from bottom on their matrix).

    Just to let you know that this matrix is a generic matrix. We use this identical matrix up in the oil sands when filling out our job hazard assesment
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  20. #420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    But "We" aren't accepting the risks and the consequences. We're asking other people to accept the risks and consequences of our actions. And yes, since natural resources are a provincial responsibility, it is "we" are asking "them". And if or when there is a major spill, "they" will be the ones paying the price. Not just part of the financial costs but the price of a damaged ecosystem, lost tourism, dead wildlife, etc.
    no, it is “we”, just as we, collectively, accepted and continue to accept the risks and the consequences of the oil sands and hibernia and north sea and saudi arabian and venezuelan and gulf of mexico et al production and our shipment of oil therefrom to all corners of the globe by pipeline, tanker, rail and truck. because we, collectively, consume it by choice in all corners of the globe. should we? arguably not. but we do. should we stop? arguably. but until we actually have options enabling that, we are left with assessing risks and consequences and options as best we can.
    Funny but I don't recall Alberta having a voice in Hibernia or the North Sea or Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. Unless you mean "we" as in everyone on the planet. Then sure, I would imagine that most people couldn't care less if there was a tanker going down near Vancouver every week. As long as it didn't affect them, most people wouldn't be too concerned about it.

    When we dump out used electronic into Asian countries for recycling, we don't care very much about the fact that it's quite often children doing the work and they're exposed to all sorts of noxious chemicals and terrible working conditions. But Canadians continue to send our crap overseas because it's then out of our sight.

    Sure, it's theoretically illegal but we often just ship it to someone in the States or some other country and it eventually ends up in a place like this ---

    Following The Trail Of Toxic E-Waste

    "This is really the dirty little secret of the electronic age," Jim Puckett said.


    Greenpeace has been filming around Guiyu and caught the recycling work. Women were heating circuit boards over a coal fire, pulling out chips and pouring off the lead solder. Men were using what is literally a medieval acid recipe to extract gold. Pollution has ruined the town. Drinking water is trucked in. Scientists have studied the area and discovered that Guiyu has the highest levels of cancer-causing dioxins in the world. They found pregnancies are six times more likely to end in miscarriage, and that seven out of ten kids have too much lead in their blood.


    "These people are not just working with these materials, they're living with them. They're all around their homes," Pelley told Allen Hershkowitz.


    "The situation in Guiyu is actually pre-capitalist. It's mercantile. It reverts back to a time when people lived where they worked, lived at their shop. Open, uncontrolled burning of plastics. Chlorinated and brominated plastics is known worldwide to cause the emission of polychlorinated and polybrominated dioxins. These are among the most toxic compounds known on earth," Hershkowitz explained.


    "We have a situation where we have 21st century toxics being managed in a 17th century environment."



    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/followi...xic-e-waste/2/
    So yeah, "we" accept the risk, right?

  21. #421
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,052

    Default

    ^

    that was a strange topic shift but okay...

    yes, we when it comes to transmountain and yes, we when it comes to how and where we recycle or donít.

    and yes, we when it comes to oil from venezuela or saudi arabia etc.

    we albertanís, including you, have the same voice about whether we as canadianís import it by tanker and by pipeline to eastern canada endangering coastlines and seaways and rivers and fishing grounds and whale populations. we as albertans and canadians have a strange tendency to use probability and consequence and risk analysis when it suits our predetermined positions to say yes or no but strangely and happily choose to ignore using those same things to make choices which simply then allows those choices to be made by default.

    interestingly enough, the number of tankers proposed for transmountain is less than the number of tankers in the strait of juan de fuca than the number that deliver to cherry point every year to be refined into cheap gas that many in the lower mainland still duck down into washington to buy. maybe we should risk analyze that and extend transmountain through surrey and offer to upgrade their refineries to handle more heavy oil than we already ship them by tanker?

    maybe instead of lobbying to shut down or say no to more pipelines we - including you - should be lobbying for more pipelines and more capacity at their terminations regardless of which coast they terminate at?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  22. #422

    Default

    Strange topic shift Ken? He is pulling fabrications from his equater's region to continue an argument that I'm not buying. To my understanding, most - if not all- of those old computer chips are shipped to China for salvage and disposal. I don't recall any child labor in China. Sure, they may have their children helping out private family businesses to a small degree, but it is hardly child labor. Infact, a little responsibility for children is good as it teaches them some values, morals, and appreciations rather than become drug or alcohol addicts because they are too spoiled.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  23. #423

    Default

    Here's the truth:

    https://www.pipelinenews.ca/opinion/...ine-1.23419145

    The most telling paragraphs are the ones below for the hypocrites on this thread:



    Watchingthe coverage of the exultant First Nations people who had won their court case,I realized

    thisfundamentally comes down to an irresistible force meeting an immovable object.It was clear from the statements of Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president ofthe Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, that no matter how muchconsultation takes place under the ďduty to consult,Ē there will never be anaffirmative response from them regarding this pipeline. I noted they made all thesejoyous comments wearing shoes with rubber soles, seeing through plasticglasses, speaking behind a clear acrylic podium into a plastic microphone. Thelawyerís tie was synthetic, as were many others. One of the elderly ladies inthe front held a plastic water bottle. The Grand Chief wore a fleece-typejacket. And Iím sure they didnít ride their horses to the event. I didnít seeany in the background.
    So itís okay to use petroleum andpetrochemicals, for everything, as long as itís not Canadian oil from theoilsands.
    And while I didnít see horses in thebackground, I did see a number of ships. Large ships. The judgment hinged inpart on consideration of the southern resident orca population (why thejudgement used the misnomer ďkiller whaleĒ is beyond me). Itís curious how thecourt found this pipeline cannot be built until tanker trafficís impact isstudied to death, yet it does not touch on the coal or grain bulkers, nor thewood haulers, private yachts and pleasure craft. All that is just fine, but afew extra tankers could potentially destroy the orcas. And the tankers cominginto Washington state arenít a problem, either. Just the ones associated withthis pipeline.

  24. #424
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,261

    Default

    So much misunderstanding by many here.

    Fact is that the process was flawed, that's been known for a number of years. Changes were made to the way the NEB conducts reviews that left out critical components of the process. That's been acknowledged by the courts. While it's true that most First Nations in BC do not have treaties (and let's acknowledge the reason why treaties exist throughout Alberta, Sask and Manitoba) there are numerous nations with multiple un-resolved claims in BC and those claims must be recognized in the same manner in which treaty rights are recognized in other parts of Canada, that's been acknowledged by the courts and also through the actions of all levels of government through the current reconciliation process.

    I am in favor of the pipeline, just as most of my fellow British Columbians are. However the proper process must be followed and it's clear it was not. That's been said for several years now, and now it's become clear that this is indeed the case. I think Edmontonians are used to doing things in a haphazard and incomplete manner and don't even really understand what meaningful consultation means... that's pretty evident if you just look around the city or read this forum... but that's no excuse for not fulfilling the government's obligation to ensure the process is sound and all requirements are met on a project with national interests and inter-provincial stakes.

    The government never should have bought this pipeline. The only winner in this debacle is KM. But that doesn't undermine the new owners' responsibility to do things properly. There are no quick solutions and the only responsible path forward is to do what should have been done in the first place and complete the required consultations, acknowledge the downstream risks as part of the project and move forward that way. Screaming fits and veiled racism may make you feel better but it's not the correct path forward.
    Parkdale

  25. #425
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,052

    Default

    ^

    cn and cp may also turn out to be winners... and farmers may turn out to be additional losers as they lose track access for grain to oil.

    https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.theg...-crude-source/
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  26. #426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    So much misunderstanding by many here.

    Fact is that the process was flawed, that's been known for a number of years. Changes were made to the way the NEB conducts reviews that left out critical components of the process. That's been acknowledged by the courts. While it's true that most First Nations in BC do not have treaties (and let's acknowledge the reason why treaties exist throughout Alberta, Sask and Manitoba) there are numerous nations with multiple un-resolved claims in BC and those claims must be recognized in the same manner in which treaty rights are recognized in other parts of Canada, that's been acknowledged by the courts and also through the actions of all levels of government through the current reconciliation process.

    I am in favor of the pipeline, just as most of my fellow British Columbians are. However the proper process must be followed and it's clear it was not. That's been said for several years now, and now it's become clear that this is indeed the case. I think Edmontonians are used to doing things in a haphazard and incomplete manner and don't even really understand what meaningful consultation means... that's pretty evident if you just look around the city or read this forum... but that's no excuse for not fulfilling the government's obligation to ensure the process is sound and all requirements are met on a project with national interests and inter-provincial stakes.

    The government never should have bought this pipeline. The only winner in this debacle is KM. But that doesn't undermine the new owners' responsibility to do things properly. There are no quick solutions and the only responsible path forward is to do what should have been done in the first place and complete the required consultations, acknowledge the downstream risks as part of the project and move forward that way. Screaming fits and veiled racism may make you feel better but it's not the correct path forward.
    It seems that for many decades now there’s been a reoccurring failure to consult, give and take, compensate, share and everything else that a mutually respectful process would entail. Moreover, sometimes a firm no to some projects is actually the right answer and both sides know it. That apparently is not really the case here. (I’d say that allowing nuclear powered ships and submarines in those coastal waters might be such a case.)

    In this case bitumen shipping does present some new and novel risks and cleanup challenges. Any approval should be contingent on ongoing funding being provided to ensure a spill or tanker crash would and could be cleaned up and everyone properly compensated if not over-compensated, in the interim. If Alberta and Canada are going to come out many, many billions of dollars ahead as a result of this pipeline then it seems to make sense to devote some percentage of the proceeds towards protecting the environment all along the shipping route.

    If increased shipping is a concern then maybe a reduction of other types of shipping is in order. A review of both new and old shipping and/or re-prioritizing of what is allowed in those waters could be done. Maybe it’s time for a “highest and best use” assessment of all shipping into and out of coastal ports.

    Also, some sort of regulatory and citizen pre-approval needs to be undertaken for future projects (LNG, electric tie lines, gas lines, rail lines, etc). Waiting until the need is present seems to fail far too often. Maybe some sort of utility and transportation corridor needs to be established. It may not be the most cost effective route for every type of need but it may turn out to be a route that could be used as a last resort. (Say tunnel through mountains, build large double walled conduits over waterways or whatever to establish it. Build an offshore loading facility to protect coastal fisheries...)
    Last edited by KC; 08-09-2018 at 04:21 PM.

  27. #427
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beaumont, ab
    Posts
    836

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    So much misunderstanding by many here.

    Fact is that the process was flawed, that's been known for a number of years. Changes were made to the way the NEB conducts reviews that left out critical components of the process. That's been acknowledged by the courts. While it's true that most First Nations in BC do not have treaties (and let's acknowledge the reason why treaties exist throughout Alberta, Sask and Manitoba) there are numerous nations with multiple un-resolved claims in BC and those claims must be recognized in the same manner in which treaty rights are recognized in other parts of Canada, that's been acknowledged by the courts and also through the actions of all levels of government through the current reconciliation process.

    I am in favor of the pipeline, just as most of my fellow British Columbians are. However the proper process must be followed and it's clear it was not. That's been said for several years now, and now it's become clear that this is indeed the case. I think Edmontonians are used to doing things in a haphazard and incomplete manner and don't even really understand what meaningful consultation means... that's pretty evident if you just look around the city or read this forum... but that's no excuse for not fulfilling the government's obligation to ensure the process is sound and all requirements are met on a project with national interests and inter-provincial stakes.

    The government never should have bought this pipeline. The only winner in this debacle is KM. But that doesn't undermine the new owners' responsibility to do things properly. There are no quick solutions and the only responsible path forward is to do what should have been done in the first place and complete the required consultations, acknowledge the downstream risks as part of the project and move forward that way. Screaming fits and veiled racism may make you feel better but it's not the correct path forward.
    Who's screaming???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...jk. Explain how Shell's LNG project got green lit after only 6 months? You don't think the "consultations and assessments" wouldn't have had to been at least 10X of that of a pipeline? Well let me tell you....the "1st nations" payoff(s) didn't happen quickly enough. Just admit it....this has nothing to do with the "proper process" Jesus...am I the only who knows this?!!!!! I feel like Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men!" "You can't handle the truth".....lol

  28. #428

    Default

    ...


    ‘Sickening’: First Nations left empty-handed as environmentalist pressure kills B.C. energy projects | Financial Post
    Nov, 2017

    “But Big Green measures its success by stopping things, which results in media exposure and increased opportunities for financial contributions, while Indigenous governments — who represent people with a 13,000-year-plus track record of protecting the environment — get re-elected based on whether they deliver “tangible holistic community wellness through balanced development” in their communities.

    “These environmentalists are happy to make a park in somebody else’s backyard,” Helin said. “Well, screw that. You are talking about people where there is 90 per cent unemployment.”


    For example, ...”




    “Led by Calvin Helin, a member of the Lax Kw’alaams and the brother of John Helin, the project is fighting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s proposed tanker moratorium for the northern B.C. coast, which was announced last year at the same time the Northern Gateway project was killed.

    “The Great Bear Rainforest is no place for a pipeline and the Douglas Channel is no place for oil tanker traffic,” Trudeau said at the time.

    Helin said the Great Bear Rainforest is “total fiction” invented by Tzeporah Berman, the former co-director of Greenpeace International’s Global Climate and Energy Program and co-founder of ForestEthics, who describes herself in her biography as one of the creators and lead negotiators of the Great Bear Rainforest agreement and the Canadian Boreal Forest Initiative.

    Helin said chiefs with unextinguished title over the territory had never heard of such a forest and bitterly oppose the idea.

    “Who the heck are these people from big cities coming into their traditional territory telling them what they can and can’t do in their traditional territory?” Helin said.

    “What these trust fund babies are basically doing is parachuting into traditional territories whose people have looked after the environment for thousands of years.” ...



    “Laboucan-Avirom’s band, which is surrounded by oil and gas development, supports energy projects that benefit First Nations communities over the long term. [b]Otherwise, “I am just administering poverty,” despite sitting on some of the world’s richest oil and gas deposits, he said. “I want the ability to share the wealth that has been taken out of our territories for the last one hundred years.” ...”

    As Haisla chief, Ross took a stand against the Northern Gateway pipeline, the first of the big energy projects proposed in the province in recent years, because it didn’t have enough to offer First Nations and there were too many environmental risks.

    But he supported the LNG projects proposed for his region — Royal Dutch Shell PLC-led LNG Canada and Chevron Corp.-led Kitimat LNG — because they came with ownership opportunities and business development.



    ...


    “But Pierce acknowledged that projects actively trying to get permitted or financed could slip away “if we do not seize the moment today to try and assure these projects go forward.”

    If they do slip away, Ross said the Haisla will remain dependent on government handouts. “Basically, they lose the future,” he said. “





    https://business.financialpost.com/c...nergy-projects

    Bolding mine
    Last edited by KC; 08-09-2018 at 05:34 PM.

  29. #429
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,345

    Default

    When it comes to FN and other special interest groups, its all about the money.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  30. #430

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    When it comes to FN and other special interest groups, its all about the money.
    I’d say, not all about the money but money is extremely important. However, for the rest of us, how is it not “all about the money”? Moreover if for the FN it’s all about the money. Then why is this NOT already a done deal? Unless the benefits from the pipeline won’t return near the monetary gains that have been serving as the main rallying cry.

    We can continue to ship by rail. We could process it here and then send it somewhere by pipeline... but for the money
    Last edited by KC; 08-09-2018 at 05:55 PM.

  31. #431
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    When it comes to FN and other special interest groups, its all about the money.
    i suppose i could say thank you for reminding that me that no matter how old i get, there will always be someone who will say something so ill-informed and wrong that all it can do is make you sad.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  32. #432
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beaumont, ab
    Posts
    836

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    When it comes to FN and other special interest groups, its all about the money.
    i suppose i could say thank you for reminding that me that no matter how old i get, there will always be someone who will say something so ill-informed and wrong that all it can do is make you sad.
    Too funny! It's all good....don't fret over how most of us on here are too stupid to live...life goes on. Now I see how ill informed a lot on this forum are as well. I've been in the O&G sector for 14 years and the 10,000's of conversations I've had with all levels of workers, form the lowly Seismic guys - Cave dwellers from Quebec right on up to 2nd-in-commands with the Calgary Majors......and EVERY single conversation based around "what we're talking about here" is always the same. Now why is that? Are we all ill-informed? If so, you've got a lot of convincing to do - about 100,000 plus workers in the patch....so you might want to get on that.......

  33. #433
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maclac View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    When it comes to FN and other special interest groups, its all about the money.
    i suppose i could say thank you for reminding that me that no matter how old i get, there will always be someone who will say something so ill-informed and wrong that all it can do is make you sad.
    Too funny! It's all good....don't fret over how most of us on here are too stupid to live...life goes on. Now I see how ill informed a lot on this forum are as well. I've been in the O&G sector for 14 years and the 10,000's of conversations I've had with all levels of workers, form the lowly Seismic guys - Cave dwellers from Quebec right on up to 2nd-in-commands with the Calgary Majors......and EVERY single conversation based around "what we're talking about here" is always the same. Now why is that? Are we all ill-informed? If so, you've got a lot of convincing to do - about 100,000 plus workers in the patch....so you might want to get on that.......
    itís all good - iíve met lots of smart people who have been ill-informed and wrong on some things as well.

    just like iíve met lots of first nationís and special interest groups and others who support the o & g sector including pipelines who arenít ill-informed and wrong on this topic and have nothing to gain by it either way other than what we all gain from a healthy economy and a sector that goes a long way to supporting that and is capable of going a lot further.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  34. #434

    Default

    First Nations group proposes oil pipeline that protects indigenous rights | World news | The Guardian
    Ashifa Kassam in Toronto, Sat 8 Sep 2018

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...igenous-rights



    First Nations look to buy equity in pipeline to have say in project's future | World news | The Guardian
    Leyland Cecco
    Last modified on Fri 15 Jun 2018

    “...

    A large source of tension around Trans Mountain project centres on the idea of unceded lands: few formal treaties were ever signed between British Columbia’s colonial settlers and the indigenous population – whose descendants argue that they retain the right to control any development.

    And in a string of previous high-profile legal battles, courts have tended to recognize the broad powers of indigenous land title, giving First Nations a potential veto on development projects.

    ...
    “We learn almost daily, as other First Nations speak out about it, that they’re quite comfortable with this pipeline and they’re looking forward to the benefits that will flow from its construction in terms of training, jobs and the opportunity to engage in the construction of it.”

    “...
    “We work very hard to ensure our territories are protected. We’re the stewards of the land,” said Quintal. “But at the same time, I need to make sure my members can put food on the table. I need to make sure they can get...”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...fer-buy-shares
    Last edited by KC; 10-09-2018 at 01:03 AM.

  35. #435

    Default

    Stumbled onto this older article. The project created a lot of jobs and certainly did a lot of environmental damage. Not sure if any of the pipeline crossings have ever leaked.


    Construction of the Coquihalla: Still Amazing After 30 Years | TranBC, 2016

    “Accelerated design and construction began in the spring of 1984 in preparation for Expo 86 in Vancouver. To be sure the project was completed on time, more than 10,000 people were needed to fill all of the jobs. More than 1,000 pieces of heavy equipment worked non-stop every day during the summer of 1985 to get it done!“

    “...
    The Coquihalla Highway is also bridge engineer’s dream, with a bridge or overpass on average every 3,158 metres.

    In total:

    18 highway interchanges

    38 bridge and overpass structures

    19 vehicle underpasses and

    50 pipeline crossings were built along the route

    Green Ahead of its Time

    The construction of the Coquihalla also included award-winning work to protect fauna and flora along the route. All environmental work was planned and performed under the supervision of environment and fishery experts.
    ...”


    https://www.tranbc.ca/2016/05/16/con...fter-30-years/
    Last edited by KC; 10-09-2018 at 11:48 AM.

  36. #436

    Default

    Why Russian oil — and not Canadian — will keep fuelling the U.S. Pacific Northwest | Financial Post

    https://business.financialpost.com/o...ific-northwest

  37. #437

    Default

    Good news for TMX proponents as the BC NDP strive to match the environmental hypocrisy of their Alberta counterparts. This move will likely cause the Green Party MLAs currently propping up the Horgan government to jump ship at the next opportunity. It's unlikely that whoever replaces the Horgan government will attempt to block TMX in any meaningful way. Sigh.

    $40B LNG project in northern B.C. gets go-ahead

    The five primary investors granted their approval late Monday for the development of a proposed liquefied natural gas project in northern B.C.

    The $40-billion LNG Canada project calls for the construction of a pipeline to transport natural gas from Dawson Creek in northeastern B.C. to a yet-to-be-built processing terminal on the coast in Kitimat, where the gas would be liquefied for overseas export.

    ...

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...nada-1.4845831

  38. #438
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Good news for TMX proponents as the BC NDP strive to match the environmental hypocrisy of their Alberta counterparts. This move will likely cause the Green Party MLAs currently propping up the Horgan government to jump ship at the next opportunity. It's unlikely that whoever replaces the Horgan government will attempt to block TMX in any meaningful way. Sigh.

    $40B LNG project in northern B.C. gets go-ahead

    The five primary investors granted their approval late Monday for the development of a proposed liquefied natural gas project in northern B.C.

    The $40-billion LNG Canada project calls for the construction of a pipeline to transport natural gas from Dawson Creek in northeastern B.C. to a yet-to-be-built processing terminal on the coast in Kitimat, where the gas would be liquefied for overseas export.

    ...

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...nada-1.4845831
    The Green Party would be utter morons to bring down Horgan at this point. There is no way they are going to form government, or even official opposition, so the best they could hope for is continued third-party status propping up a minority government, with maybe a few more seats. Which doesn't give them any more influence than what they have now.

  39. #439
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Good news for TMX proponents as the BC NDP strive to match the environmental hypocrisy of their Alberta counterparts. This move will likely cause the Green Party MLAs currently propping up the Horgan government to jump ship at the next opportunity. It's unlikely that whoever replaces the Horgan government will attempt to block TMX in any meaningful way. Sigh.

    $40B LNG project in northern B.C. gets go-ahead

    The five primary investors granted their approval late Monday for the development of a proposed liquefied natural gas project in northern B.C.

    The $40-billion LNG Canada project calls for the construction of a pipeline to transport natural gas from Dawson Creek in northeastern B.C. to a yet-to-be-built processing terminal on the coast in Kitimat, where the gas would be liquefied for overseas export.

    ...

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...nada-1.4845831

    That is good news. Three Cheers for Hypocrisy!

  40. #440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Good news for TMX proponents as the BC NDP strive to match the environmental hypocrisy of their Alberta counterparts. This move will likely cause the Green Party MLAs currently propping up the Horgan government to jump ship at the next opportunity. It's unlikely that whoever replaces the Horgan government will attempt to block TMX in any meaningful way. Sigh.

    $40B LNG project in northern B.C. gets go-ahead

    The five primary investors granted their approval late Monday for the development of a proposed liquefied natural gas project in northern B.C.

    The $40-billion LNG Canada project calls for the construction of a pipeline to transport natural gas from Dawson Creek in northeastern B.C. to a yet-to-be-built processing terminal on the coast in Kitimat, where the gas would be liquefied for overseas export.

    ...

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...nada-1.4845831
    The Green Party would be utter morons to bring down Horgan at this point. There is no way they are going to form government, or even official opposition, so the best they could hope for is continued third-party status propping up a minority government, with maybe a few more seats. Which doesn't give them any more influence than what they have now.
    There's no point in propping up a government that's pursuing policies antithetical to their platform. They would be better off bringing down the government and continuing to build their base so as to form a viable opposition. If they can prove that they're willing to bring down a government then the next time they hold the balance of power they will be able to wield their influence even more.

  41. #441
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Good news for TMX proponents as the BC NDP strive to match the environmental hypocrisy of their Alberta counterparts. This move will likely cause the Green Party MLAs currently propping up the Horgan government to jump ship at the next opportunity. It's unlikely that whoever replaces the Horgan government will attempt to block TMX in any meaningful way. Sigh.

    $40B LNG project in northern B.C. gets go-ahead

    The five primary investors granted their approval late Monday for the development of a proposed liquefied natural gas project in northern B.C.

    The $40-billion LNG Canada project calls for the construction of a pipeline to transport natural gas from Dawson Creek in northeastern B.C. to a yet-to-be-built processing terminal on the coast in Kitimat, where the gas would be liquefied for overseas export.

    ...

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...nada-1.4845831
    The Green Party would be utter morons to bring down Horgan at this point. There is no way they are going to form government, or even official opposition, so the best they could hope for is continued third-party status propping up a minority government, with maybe a few more seats. Which doesn't give them any more influence than what they have now.
    There's no point in propping up a government that's pursuing policies antithetical to their platform. They would be better off bringing down the government and continuing to build their base so as to form a viable opposition. If they can prove that they're willing to bring down a government then the next time they hold the balance of power they will be able to wield their influence even more.
    Well, the BC NDP is still at least opposing pipelines, which I am taken to understand is a pretty major issue for environmentalists in BC. If they bring down the government, and the next election returns a majority government, the Greens are stuck with a government that isn't doing what they want on liquid gas, AND is less beholden to their party on pipelines. And it's an even bigger nightmare if that majority is Liberal.

  42. #442
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,371

    Default

    A nightmare for the greens is a boon for the rest of us normal people

  43. #443
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beaumont, ab
    Posts
    836

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    A nightmare for the greens is a boon for the rest of us normal people
    A big boon! Should be heading back there next year - and should hold me until I call it a day when I'm ready to retire......in 15 years....lol

  44. #444

    Default

    Engineer maclac?
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  45. #445

    Default

    Braid: Notley slams hypocrisy of BC LNG project | Calgary Herald

    “There is a high level of jaw-dropping hypocrisy that is being demonstrated through that process,” Notley said Wednesday.“


    “She continued: “But I will say that when you look at the process there, and you look at the fact that the government of B.C. and the people who oppose the (Trans Mountain) pipeline are ‘okily dokily’ with 350 tankers coming out of a port with rougher waters that is more difficult to get to, that somehow we have a completely different standard when we’re looking at the TMX pipeline coming out of a much calmer port . . .”


    “In further evidence that “social licence” is collapsing, Manitoba’s Progressive Conservative government suddenly announced Wednesday that the province will no longer impose its own carbon tax.”

    https://calgaryherald.com/news/polit...n-inches-along
    Last edited by KC; 04-10-2018 at 08:06 AM.

  46. #446

    Default

    The thing is, with LNG, you don't have to worry about it fouling your beaches and waterways. You don't need booms to contain it. And it doesn't sink in water like bitumen and foul the sea bottom.

  47. #447
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,345

    Default

    That's why BC FN's support LNG. Hint: Tankers can be pulled out to sea by tugs. Its been known to happen.

    In the wake of the LNG plant etc, looks like TMX is way off in the immediate future. Possibly after an election.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  48. #448
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beaumont, ab
    Posts
    836

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Engineer maclac?
    Nope, but I will go back and consult with a major player in the area next year - there will be at least 12-15 years worth of work between Dawson Creek and Ft.Nelson because of this.....the buckets of cash one can make because of this...think about the services needed to supply 40B worth of work not just in Kitimat but in also in the aforementioned geography. No, I'm not a trinket salesman selling "shiny things," but have made tons of connections in by working in this area for the last 10 years. So on top of my ridiculous Consulting wages - the 3rd party $$$$ will be insane.....

  49. #449
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    The thing is, with LNG, you don't have to worry about it fouling your beaches and waterways. You don't need booms to contain it. And it doesn't sink in water like bitumen and foul the sea bottom.
    As I posted about previously, the vast majority of petrochemical contaminants that have been spilled in Canadian waters are bunker fuel and lubricants, not crude oil. If any large ship goes down, whether an oil tanker, LNG tanker, container ship, or bulk hauler, there will need to be a spill response to remove fuel etc. Meanwhile, the concerns about shipping noise, whale collisions etc are the exact same for an LNG tanker as they are for oil/bitumen. Horgan is a complete and utter hypocrite to be cheerleading LNG terminals while painting Transmountain as beyond the pale.

  50. #450

    Default

    Vast majority thus far. However, Prince William Sound would like to have a word with you. Or do we need a disaster, oops I mean a teensy little, inconsequential spill, before we do something about it? By which time the money will have been spend on the pipeline and the terminal it there would be immense pressure to continue with the then status quo.

    After all, it's not Albertans that will have to deal with the consequences now, is it?

  51. #451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    The thing is, with LNG, you don't have to worry about it fouling your beaches and waterways. You don't need booms to contain it. And it doesn't sink in water like bitumen and foul the sea bottom.
    The plant/train/expansions will only flatten how much land?

    Then you just have that small inconsequential worry of an LNG tanker exploding and wiping out all life for a km of do around it.

    (I recall a story on Boston’s shallow harbour and how a tanker explosion there would flatten the city.)




    New video shows serious dangers posed by LNG tankers -The Common Sense Canadian

    “...
    As a result, no American port would attempt the type of activities now being contemplated in BC. Even the Harper government rejected similar LNG plans on the East Coast of Canada out of safety concerns.

    As the video explains, summarizing Sandia’s findings in the event of an explosion, when cold, compressed gas “is exposed to air, it evaporates extremely rapidly, producing explosive gas vapor. Field tests show that pools of LNG can burn for long periods of time. Flames from large LNG pool fires can reach up to 150 meters high.”

    Anything within a 500 meter radius of the tanker could be killed by freezing or suffocation from the cold gas cloud. If ignited, a large shockwave would be produced as well as a fireball that could burn anything within a 1.6 km radius, causing structural damage and starting forest fires and grass fires. The remaining LNG pool would continue to burn and spread until all of the fuel is gone. Anything within a 3.5 km radius of the blast could also be affected, but less severely.

    Uncharted waters

    Industry proponents are quick to suggest that LNG has a relatively safe history. This is problematic for two reasons. First, new plans for shipping LNG on the BC coast violate the most basic global safety standards, rendering the industry’s history irrelevant. By significantly raising the risk level and volume of shipping, we’re entering uncharted waters. Second, ...”

    http://commonsensecanadian.ca/VIDEO-...d-lng-tankers/
    Last edited by KC; 05-10-2018 at 04:39 PM.

  52. #452

    Default

    ...


    Natural Gas has no Climate Benefit and May Make Things Worse - Resilience




    The evidence is overwhelming that natural gas has no net climate benefit in any timescale that matters to humanity.

    In fact, a shocking new study concludes
    that just the methane emissions escaping from New Mexico’s gas and oil industry are “equivalent to the climate impact of approximately 12 coal-fired power plants.” If the goal is to avoid catastrophic levels of warming, a recent report by U.K. climate researchers finds “categorically no role” to play for new natural gas production.

    Sadly, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has just published a “Commentary” on “the environmental case for natural gas,” that ignores or downplays key reasons that greater use of natural gas is bad for the climate.

    In the real world, natural gas is not a “bridge” fuel to a carbon-free economy for two key reasons. First, natural gas is mostly methane (CH4), a super-potent greenhouse gas, which traps 86 times as much heat as CO2 over a 20-year period.

    That’s why many, many studies find that even a very small leakage rate of methane from the natural gas supply chain (production to delivery to combustion) can have a large climate impact  —  enough to gut the entire benefit of switching from coal-fired power to gas for a long, long time.

    Indeed, researchers confirmed in 2014 that  —  even if methane leakage were zero percent  —..”


    https://www.resilience.org/stories/2...-things-worse/

  53. #453

    Default

    There is no defending this LNG mega-project on environmental grounds and Horgan is being utterly hypocritical by supporting it.

    GHG emissions cannot be reduced by building LNG projects.

    GHG emissions cannot be reduced by building pipelines.

    NDP leaders of all stripes know these axioms to be true yet they choose to ignore them. That is hypocrisy.

  54. #454
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,371

    Default

    But.....itís BC product and BCs project. If the oil sands were in BC you can rest assured bitumen would be on its way to China.

  55. #455

    Default

    Previously approved - what was the secret to this approval and acceptance?

    LNG pipeline for northwest B.C. still active
    The 900km Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project by TransCanada received approvals to expand

    SHANNON LOUGH Jan. 7, 2018

    https://www.northernsentinel.com/new...-still-active/

  56. #456
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    But.....itís BC product and BCs project. If the oil sands were in BC you can rest assured bitumen would be on its way to China.
    it's also interesting to recall that trudeau's tanker ban was specifically addressed to oil tankers even though the potential consequences on wildlife and sea life from noise and cavitation etc. from large ocean going vessels is the same regardless of the product being transported. simple hypocrisy from the prime minister with a culturally expropriated tattoo...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  57. #457
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beaumont, ab
    Posts
    836

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Previously approved - what was the secret to this approval and acceptance?

    LNG pipeline for northwest B.C. still active
    The 900km Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project by TransCanada received approvals to expand

    SHANNON LOUGH Jan. 7, 2018

    https://www.northernsentinel.com/new...-still-active/
    This is the Progress/Petronas pipeline that was needed to take their gas from the Pink Mountain region of BC to Lelu Island. What I'm thinking is that Progress wants to tie in their feeder line into the Coastal line

    The Shell LNG pipeline is the "TCPL Coastal GasLink pipeline" already under construction BEFORE the Shell LNG announcement....once it was under construction - it was obvious Shell was going to proceed. There was also a 3rd TCPL gas pipeline in or was in the works for Chevron's LNG - the old EnCana/EOG/Apache project that turned into the Apache/Woodland project they both sold it off to Chevron.....

  58. #458
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,605

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    But.....it’s BC product and BCs project. If the oil sands were in BC you can rest assured bitumen would be on its way to China.
    it's also interesting to recall that trudeau's tanker ban was specifically addressed to oil tankers even though the potential consequences on wildlife and sea life from noise and cavitation etc. from large ocean going vessels is the same regardless of the product being transported. simple hypocrisy from the prime minister with a culturally expropriated tattoo...
    Specifically Alberta crude.

    This Act would ban tankers carrying more than 12,500 tonnes (about 90,000 barrels) of crude oil or persistent oils (things such as fuel oils, partly upgraded bitumen, synthetic crude oils and No. 6 bunker fuel) from stopping, loading and unloading at any ports along B.C.'s north coast.

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ticle36786948/

    ďCanada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,Ē-Marshall McLuhan

  59. #459

    Default

    Brian Jean: Alberta has been firewalled from Canada | Edmonton Journal

    https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/...ed-from-canada

  60. #460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Brian Jean: Alberta has been firewalled from Canada | Edmonton Journal

    https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/...ed-from-canada
    Things that were done or not done 5 or 10 years ago are the main reason the pipeline situation is the mess it is today. Madly lashing out at the current federal or provincial government will achieve nothing, but I suppose the cluelessness in this article helps explain how Alberta got itself into this bind.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •