FP: Northern Gateway hearings in Alberta cancelled after failing to draw participants
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
This is a classic response from a person who obviously doesn't know what he is talking about. Petros has had a variety of opportunities to learn what the oppossition to the Northern Gateway proposal has put forward about the relative ease of cleaning up bitumen and tar sands production, but prefers to deny having seen.
Rather than look at the alternatives being proposed to further pollution of the face of the planet he is ensconced in a position where any answer he might give is seen through in its turn. So he refuses to give an answer as well as see others answers. A mind is a terrible thing to waste..
Here is a thorough analysis of the proposed pipeline that would cross some 600 streams and rivers if it were ever built on the way to the ocean.
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/si...2012/03/CCPA-BC_Enbridge_Pipe_Dreams_2012.pdf
"THE PROPOSED ENBRIDGE NORTHERN GATEWAY PIPELINE (NGP) is a $5 billion investment
that, if approved, will transport 525,000 barrels per day of Alberta’s oil sands bitumen to Kitimat,
BC, where it would be shipped by super-tanker to China. Supporters of the NGP argue that
it is in Canada’s national economic interest to diversify oil and gas trade to Asia, and that the
pipeline will promote economic growth. Enbridge gives the impression of substantial new jobs
from the NGP, and claims that the pipeline will create 63,000 person-years of employment during
its construction phase, and 1,146 full-time jobs once completed.
This paper reviews the economic case for the NGP, and considers both the benefits and costs of
the pipeline, with a focus on employment impacts. It finds that:
• Enbridge’s claims about employment gains are grossly overstated, and based on
modeling that makes many unjustified assumptions. The only jobs we can bank on
are approximately 1,850 construction jobs per year for three years, and a handful of
permanent new jobs once completed.
• Minimal processing of oil sands bitumen in Canada passes up larger employment
creation opportunities from domestic upgrading and refining.
• Alternative $5 billion investments in green jobs and industries would create between 3
and 34 times the number of direct jobs.
• The share of total income generated by the NGP going to workers is very small by
historical standards. Large profits accrue to Enbridge and oil sands producers.
• Economic costs and environmental risks of the pipeline — including disruption to
existing employment, potential job losses due to oil spills, and the economic costs of
carbon emissions — have been ignored by Enbridge.
• If the full costs of carbon emissions from extraction, processing and combustion were
counted, the pipeline would likely be uneconomical. While private gains accrue to the
oil and gas industry, huge costs are borne by others."
What is this?
A lolipop factory?
Where is this?
How long has this been operating?
What are the long term environmental concerns?
What is their emergency plan?
How much was the bribe?
What is my cut?
A lolipop factory?
Where is this?
How long has this been operating?
What are the long term environmental concerns?
What is their emergency plan?
How much was the bribe?
What is my cut?
This is a classic response from a person who obviously doesn't know what he is talking about. Petros has had a variety of opportunities to learn what the oppossition to the Northern Gateway proposal has put forward about the relative ease of cleaning up bitumen and tar sands production, but prefers to deny having seen.
Rather than look at the alternatives being proposed to further pollution of the face of the planet he is ensconced in a position where any answer he might give is seen through in its turn. So he refuses to give an answer as well as see others answers. A mind is a terrible thing to waste..
Here is a thorough analysis of the proposed pipeline that would cross some 600 streams and rivers if it were ever built on the way to the ocean.
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/si...2012/03/CCPA-BC_Enbridge_Pipe_Dreams_2012.pdf
"THE PROPOSED ENBRIDGE NORTHERN GATEWAY PIPELINE (NGP) is a $5 billion investment
that, if approved, will transport 525,000 barrels per day of Alberta’s oil sands bitumen to Kitimat,
BC, where it would be shipped by super-tanker to China. Supporters of the NGP argue that
it is in Canada’s national economic interest to diversify oil and gas trade to Asia, and that the
pipeline will promote economic growth. Enbridge gives the impression of substantial new jobs
from the NGP, and claims that the pipeline will create 63,000 person-years of employment during
its construction phase, and 1,146 full-time jobs once completed.
This paper reviews the economic case for the NGP, and considers both the benefits and costs of
the pipeline, with a focus on employment impacts. It finds that:
• Enbridge’s claims about employment gains are grossly overstated, and based on
modeling that makes many unjustified assumptions. The only jobs we can bank on
are approximately 1,850 construction jobs per year for three years, and a handful of
permanent new jobs once completed.
• Minimal processing of oil sands bitumen in Canada passes up larger employment
creation opportunities from domestic upgrading and refining.
• Alternative $5 billion investments in green jobs and industries would create between 3
and 34 times the number of direct jobs.
• The share of total income generated by the NGP going to workers is very small by
historical standards. Large profits accrue to Enbridge and oil sands producers.
• Economic costs and environmental risks of the pipeline — including disruption to
existing employment, potential job losses due to oil spills, and the economic costs of
carbon emissions — have been ignored by Enbridge.
• If the full costs of carbon emissions from extraction, processing and combustion were
counted, the pipeline would likely be uneconomical. While private gains accrue to the
oil and gas industry, huge costs are borne by others."
Right off the dipper propaganda site. Long on OP-Ed, short on facts.
I realize that most of these people believe they are operating in our best interests the fact is all of you are so very very wrong.
And still the response from Petros is short on facts, and even short on op ed. Give some reason for your opinion or go home. Perhaps there you could actually take time to read the document and learn some things, but that is to be avoided. Right
"Green alternatives would create 3 to 34 times the number of direct jobs as a similar investment in the oil
and gas industry."
"
Any economic gains from the NGP must be weighed against impacts on existing economic activity,
and costs from adverse environmental impacts:
• In the BC development region of North Coast and Nechako, there were about 5,500
jobs in 2010 in categories that would most likely be affected by an oil spill (such as
tourism and fishing) and 12,670 jobs in the Cariboo development region.
• Even if one in ten of these jobs were affected, the job losses that could result from an
oil spill would be larger than new permanent jobs created by the NGP.
• Not counted in these statistics is the subsistence economy of fishing and trapping,
an important source of non-market food for people in rural areas. For the Gitga’at,
whose territory covers the tanker route out of Kitimat, these sources account for about
two-fifths of their food supply.
• Even in the absence of a spill, the pipeline and tanker traffic will be disruptive to the
existing fishing and tourism economy.
Economic costs of the pipeline include:
• Pipeline and tanker spills will inevitably occur due to the nature of pipelines, additional
corrosiveness of diluted bitumen, and challenging mountainous terrain.
• Remote operations will delay detection of spills and clean-up efforts.
• The GHG emissions facilitated by the Northern Gateway pipeline — extraction and
processing in Canada and combustion in China — could be in the range of 80 to 100
Mt CO2 per year. This is more than BC emissions total emissions of 67 Mt in 2009."
And still no mention of the potential upstream benefits of the pipeline such as refineries being constructed in the Kitimat area. Not to mention possible manufacturing facilities that would have access to both a reliable energy source and a deep sea port. Thousands of potential high paying jobs in an area that is sadly lacking in real jobs.
Instead of shipping yellow cake from N. Sask by highway and rail should it be piped in slurry form to the coast?
And the bulk of those going to First Nations. If I were to hire a pilot to bring ships into my port I'd want somebody who was born on those waters and knows the contours of the port simply by fishing it for 40 years.
I'm guessing you hunt with four other guys and you use AK 47s after surrounding it.
Which slice of the pie are you talking about being the primary funder, and what information can you provide that indicates you know what you are talking about. All of the various port functions and jobs are independant of whether or not this one polluting and dangerous Northern Gateway proposal were allowed to proceed.
Why? Why not build them instead in Alberta at the source, clean up the liquified tar, and then shp it. Come on, you can come up with an answer to that. try.
Really, where did Rio Tinto build this dam of which you speak? How much did they spend on this new dam? And how much were they spending on upgrading the old Alcan facility? specifically?
A benefit is somewhat different from a job. If I sell an extension cord or a tire I make a few dollars. As the Policy alternatives report showed Enbridge exaggerated the spin-off jobs.
Ok so this is just non-sensical
The oil from the tar sands is going to be burned and Russia and Iran are going to benefit. More nonsense? or are you trying in some obscure way to say something else.
Last edited:
I feel sorry for your parents.I'm guessing you hunt with four other guys and you use AK 47s after surrounding it.
Nope Just a chick named Tikka.
Which slice of the pie are you talking about being the primary funder, and what information can you provide that indicates you know what you are talking about. All of the various port functions and jobs are independant of whether or not this one polluting and dangerous Northern Gateway proposal were allowed to proceed.
You haven't heard of the Asia Pacific Gateway and Corridor or the Pacific Gateway? Why haven't you?
Why? Why not build them instead in Alberta at the source, clean up the liquified tar, and then shp it. Come on, you can come up with an answer to that. try.
Are you retarded? Then we'd be shipping afar more eco-damaging product.
Really, where did Rio Tinto build this dam of which you speak? How much did they spend on this new dam? And how much were they spending on upgrading the old Alcan facility? specifically?
Who said anything about Alcan? I guess you did some Googling didn't you? Did it hurt to learn? What did you learn?
A benefit is somewhat different from a job. If I sell an extension cord or a tire I make a few dollars. As the Policy alternatives report showed Enbridge exaggerated the spin-off jobs.
Are the Feds lieing too? There is no massive infrastructure system being built? Nobody will get jobs because it's being built, ran and serviced by robots? Who will service the robots? More robots?
Can you prove they are lieing about the job created in the ports and corridor?
Ok so this is just non-sensical
Do more googling and learn about what you are trying to stop.
The oil from the tar sands is going to be burned and Russia and Iran are going to benefit. More nonsense? or are you trying in some obscure way to say something else.
Are you ****ed in the head?.
It is always puzzling to know where your 'information' comes from. The fact is, that some renewable energies are already proving cheaper than traditional sources. Wind particularly. Soon, all renewables will be. Most now are when externalities are considered.
They also provide far more jobs: sustainable jobs. permanent jobs.
Wind power? The **** they sell at a premium to greenies? When you charge 4cents more per kW/h you'll make more money.....but only when it's windy.
Do you think companies like Enbridge and Suncor should get into the renewable game?
Do you think companies like Enbridge and Suncor should get into the renewable game?
Google it! And, yes, they should since their future is limited in their present shape.
They should 10 years ago in SK.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The SunBridge Wind Farm is a facility situated five kilometres southeast of Gull Lake, Saskatchewan. The facility is owned by Suncor Energy and Enbridge. The wind farm will consists of 17 Vestas V47 wind turbines, for a total capacity of 11.2 MW.[1] The project, completed in 2002, was the first modern wind farm in Saskatchewan.
I'm guessing you hunt with four other guys and you use AK 47s after surrounding it.
Which slice of the pie are you talking about being the primary funder, and what information can you provide that indicates you know what you are talking about. All of the various port functions and jobs are independant of whether or not this one polluting and dangerous Northern Gateway proposal were allowed to proceed.
Why? Why not build them instead in Alberta at the source, clean up the liquified tar, and then shp it. Come on, you can come up with an answer to that. try.
Really, where did Rio Tinto build this dam of which you speak? How much did they spend on this new dam? And how much were they spending on upgrading the old Alcan facility? specifically?
A benefit is somewhat different from a job. If I sell an extension cord or a tire I make a few dollars. As the Policy alternatives report showed Enbridge exaggerated the spin-off jobs.
Ok so this is just non-sensical
The oil from the tar sands is going to be burned and Russia and Iran are going to benefit. More nonsense? or are you trying in some obscure way to say something else.
You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Or would you rather starve society back into the stone age?