Conservatives giving up on Keystone XL

[Zipperfish]

You green beans are quite confident a modern pipeline will break like one of the 50 year old ones have that have had issues and no clue that the Douglas Channel everyone is trying to protect has been contaminated with sodium fluoride from the Alcan smelter since before you were born.

umm...no. Kitimat Harbour has elevated flouride levels. Ktimat Harbour and Douglas Channel are two different animals. Fluoride levels in Kitimat harbour are high, but there is still an active ecosystem. You don't just say "Oh, this water is elevated with this chemcial so, we can just dump whatever then."

What would happen if an LNG tanker had a mishap? LNG tankers and the LNG ports passed enviro with flying colours. Why?

Environmentally? Not much. Instant catastrophic local imapct of a cryogenic material hitting the water. Explosion would be a much biugger concern.

If you lived in one of these alleged pristine valleys where the lines will run through would you prefer a NG pipeline break or bitumen?

Depends how close i was to the break.

Would a bitumen spill be anything like a crude spill? You are aware that bitumen isn't water soluble and poses no threat to sea life or shore lines because floats in chunks?

Bitumen is slightly soluble in water, as are most elements of crude oil. The condensate is more soluble and more tocix, bnut doesn't last long.

This report in the news right indicates that bitument can sink in marine waters.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ediments-federal-report-says/article16335022/

What makes you believe there is no oversight? Guessing or you have some sort of knowledge nobody else has?

Gutting of environmental legislation federally. Cutting of environmental oversight, research and monitoring programs. messages from the Conservatvies that people that care about the environemnt are radicals.

 

[taxslave]

Ya think?

Of course it is, and has long been, that way. The world has an "oil lake" with many inputs and outputs. I'm just challenging the rah-rah oil drinkers to state that simple truth, and quit lying to people that oil produced in North America will necessarily be consumed in North America.

Does anybody really think that? Obviously some of it will be but the whole point of the refineries in Texas is export. And the whole point OF XL is to get our product to market. Canada is far better off with Northern Gateway and a line East than with XL anyway.

umm...no. Kitimat Harbour has elevated flouride levels. Ktimat Harbour and Douglas Channel are two different animals. Fluoride levels in Kitimat harbour are high, but there is still an active ecosystem. You don't just say "Oh, this water is elevated with this chemcial so, we can just dump whatever then."



Environmentally? Not much. Instant catastrophic local imapct of a cryogenic material hitting the water. Explosion would be a much biugger concern.

Depends how close i was to the break.



Bitumen is slightly soluble in water, as are most elements of crude oil. The condensate is more soluble and more tocix, bnut doesn't last long.

This report in the news right indicates that bitument can sink in marine waters.

Diluted bitumen sinks when mixed with sediments, federal report says - The Globe and Mail



Gutting of environmental legislation federally. Cutting of environmental oversight, research and monitoring programs. messages from the Conservatvies that people that care about the environemnt are radicals.

WE all care about the environment. Just that some of us also feel obligated to pay our own way and not live off the government. And said government is not gutting regulations they are rightfully making the producers take on the cost of R&D and spill mitigation instead of the taxpayer. Monitoring is one more area where the producer should be footing the bills and not the taxpayer. You could consider any government oversight as a subsidy to business, and we would't want that , would we?

 

[Simple Man]

WE all care about the environment. Just that some of us also feel obligated to pay our own way and not live off the government. And said government is not gutting regulations they are rightfully making the producers take on the cost of R&D and spill mitigation instead of the taxpayer. Monitoring is one more area where the producer should be footing the bills and not the taxpayer. You could consider any government oversight as a subsidy to business, and we would't want that , would we?

So all the hullaballoo over gutting the navigable waterways protection and the plethora of seemingly questionable actions by our government are simply overblown? Nothing going on with the state of things that you might question?

 

[mentalfloss]

WE all care about the economy. Just that some of us also feel obligated get successful jobs and not complain endlessly about taxes and government intervention. And said government is not gutting corporations, they are making the producers forsake the cost of R&D and instead, passing the cost to consumers. Monitoring is one more area where the corporation should be footing the bills for their portion of the pollution. You could consider any government oversight as an enforcer of ethical business, and we wouldn't want that, would we?

 

[captain morgan]

So all the hullaballoo over gutting the navigable waterways protection and the plethora of seemingly questionable actions by our government are simply overblown? Nothing going on with the state of things that you might question?

There's a whole lot of shipping of toxic substances off the BC coast already... This isn't anything new

Monitoring is one more area where the corporation should be footing the bills for their portion of the pollution. You could consider any government oversight as an enforcer of ethical business, and we would't want that, would we?

The corps are and have been doing that for years.. It's the green lobby that seems to believe that it isn't good enough and they demand gvt intervention.

Frankly, there is nothing stopping greenpeace, forest ethics, etc from monitoring themselves... Except for having to put up cash, that is.. It seems that spending any of their own money is where they draw the line in their participation

 

[Simple Man]

There's a whole lot of shipping of toxic substances off the BC coast already... This isn't anything new



The corps are and have been doing that for years.. It's the green lobby that seems to believe that it isn't good enough and they demand gvt intervention.

Frankly, there is nothing stopping greenpeace, forest ethics, etc from monitoring themselves... Except for having to put up cash, that is.. It seems that spending any of their own money is where they draw the line in their participation

If it has been already happening then what was the point of gutting the legislation regarding navigable waterways via hiding it within the omnibus bill? Surely no ulterior motives right? Never happen...ever...

Seems to me the current government is going to great lengths in some ways to make sure anything that might sully or block it's agenda gets quashed.

Consider. They just cancelled BC Ferries summer route 40 between Bella Coola and Port Hardy to save a few million without taking into account the ill effects that will have on tourism operators in the area that depend on the route. It has been postulated that the route actually represents a net gain when consideration is given to the full economic good it represents in the way of tourism. But tourism does not jive with the conservative agenda of wholesale resources...so it's gone...for the time being.

Imagine your whole livelyhood as an tourism operator being arbitrarily discounted by such a move. Most book seasons in advance and depend on the ferry as an integral part of the operation.

 

[Zipperfish]

WE all care about the environment. Just that some of us also feel obligated to pay our own way and not live off the government. And said government is not gutting regulations they are rightfully making the producers take on the cost of R&D and spill mitigation instead of the taxpayer. Monitoring is one more area where the producer should be footing the bills and not the taxpayer. You could consider any government oversight as a subsidy to business, and we would't want that , would we?

I support industry taking on responsibilities for monitoring, R&D and spill mitigation. It's already an integral part of the system. The oversight means someone is making suyre that industries are living up to their responsibility to do this. They can be in a conflict of interest if left as sole stewards of the environment. They have responsibilities to their shareholders and if they can privatize gains and socialize losses, they will maximize profits. Because the air and water are public resources, we need a public body--the government--to look out for them.

 

[captain morgan]

Seems to me the current government is going to great lengths in some ways to make sure anything that might sully or block it's agenda gets quashed.

My take is that the current gvt is taking steps to ensure that lobby groups or one jurisdiction (in this case, BC) don't hold the rest of the nation hostage.

Sask could just as easily refuse to allow any hazardous materials to cross through on rail.. That would kind of nullify CN and CPR's effectiveness, right?

BC is attempting to do that via the ports.. To my knowledge, the ports and shorelines are a Federal responsibility, just like the rail ways and airports

Consider. They just cancelled BC Ferries summer route 40 between Bella Coola and Port Hardy to save a few million without taking into account the ill effects that will have on tourism operators in the area that depend on the route. It has been postulated that the route actually represents a net gain when consideration is given to the full economic good it represents in the way of tourism. But tourism does not jive with the conservative agenda of wholesale resources...so it's gone...for the time being.

Talk to BC Ferries about that... Nothing to do with the Feds or Omnibus

Imagine your whole livelyhood as an tourism operator being arbitrarily discounted by such a move. Most book seasons in advance and depend on the ferry as an integral part of the operation.

That is exactly what you proposed earlier with the suggestion to nationalize resources.

 

[Zipperfish]

Frankly, there is nothing stopping greenpeace, forest ethics, etc from monitoring themselves... Except for having to put up cash, that is.. It seems that spending any of their own money is where they draw the line in their participation

I wouldn't expect much from Greenpeace, but other Environmentnal groups can and do take action. Some do monitoring. Some just buy land they want preserved (e.g. Ducks UNlimited) and some take teh government to court when they think it isn't doing its job.

Greenpeace is like the marketing end. Markerters never have a real firm grasp of what the product they are selling is, but can get it on TV for you.

 

[Simple Man]

My take is that the current gvt is taking steps to ensure that lobby groups or one jurisdiction (in this case, BC) don't hold the rest of the nation hostage.

Sask could just as easily refuse to allow any hazardous materials to cross through on rail.. That would kind of nullify CN and CPR's effectiveness, right?

BC is attempting to do that via the ports.. To my knowledge, the ports and shorelines are a Federal responsibility, just like the rail ways and airports

Yeah. So the 2000 scientists, the muzzling of them also, the gutting of the DFO libraries, things of this nature are all measures to calm the waters or prevent lobby groups from influencing things?. I don't buy it. Further you don't suspect that there mightn't be some actions ensuring certain lobby group's agenda take priority? Specifically lobbying efforts by the resource sector?



Talk to BC Ferries about that... Nothing to do with the Feds or Omnibus

Ya....kinda screwed the pooch on that one.



That is exactly what you proposed earlier with the suggestion to nationalize resources.

How so?

-----------

 

[captain morgan]

Got any proof of the 'oil lobby' influencing things?.. There's plenty of examples of the ecotards doing it.

As for all the other examples you brought up, those have nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Sounds to me like you are just looking for anything that supports a dislike for the Cons.

 

[Simple Man]

Got any proof of the 'oil lobby' influencing things?.. There's plenty of examples of the ecotards doing it.

As for all the other examples you brought up, those have nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Sounds to me like you are just looking for anything that supports a dislike for the Cons.

Nope....no proof. I'm sure our political environment up here is squeaky clean. Nothing but peaches and cherries as far as the eye can see.

Actually there really is no party I'm partial to. Seems like neopolitan like ice cream to me, three different flavors, same box. Seems sometimes the only party with a platform radical enough to affect the status quo are the greens.

 

[Goober]

Government has a critical role in ensuring environmental standards and the pace of development.

I agree, but it is a fine line to slow or stop development. And I see no reason to stop the Oil Sands development.
Investment capital in these projects are based upon 50 year plans for ROI. Capital does not sit for a decade while Govts. get their plans together.
Look at the pipeline west.
How many years, how much money spent. And where are we on that?

 

[DaSleeper]

All those anti harper and conservatives threads....I thought C K was back...but...it's just Flossy and Ruff competing for top ideologue...:lol:

 

[Spade]

Love it, Sleeper. But, perhaps the Conservatives will turn this into an advantage? After all, Conservatives and Conservationists have the same root.
PS
Who's CK, Christine Keeler?,

 

[taxslave]

If it has been already happening then what was the point of gutting the legislation regarding navigable waterways via hiding it within the omnibus bill? Surely no ulterior motives right? Never happen...ever...

Seems to me the current government is going to great lengths in some ways to make sure anything that might sully or block it's agenda gets quashed.

Consider. They just cancelled BC Ferries summer route 40 between Bella Coola and Port Hardy to save a few million without taking into account the ill effects that will have on tourism operators in the area that depend on the route. It has been postulated that the route actually represents a net gain when consideration is given to the full economic good it represents in the way of tourism. But tourism does not jive with the conservative agenda of wholesale resources...so it's gone...for the time being.

Imagine your whole livelyhood as an tourism operator being arbitrarily discounted by such a move. Most book seasons in advance and depend on the ferry as an integral part of the operation.

The ferry is run by the BC government. ANd us PROVINCIAL taxpayers are being forced to foot the bill to supply customers to tourism businesses that oppose any real industry in the area. During the dark years of dipper missmanagement we lost over 30% of our logging area because of VQOs. Seems people on tour ships to Alaska don't want to see clearcuts or BC residents earning a living. Unfortunately said tourists do not drop a single dime in the area since their ships do not stop in Canadian waters, just use our navigation equipment and SAR services.
Imagine being one of the local loggers having your life pulled out from under you by an anti jobs government.

 

[mentalfloss]

Kerry to Baird: Know Your Role

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry says he still doesn't have an answer on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline extension, and suggests it won't be coming any time soon.

Kerry, as well as Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird and Mexican Foreign Secretary Jose Antonio Meade, took questions from reporters Friday morning in Washington, with Kerry's opening remarks stressing the "unity" among the three countries.

Kerry says TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL pipeline application is making its way through the Americans' administrative process, and that his job won't start until he gets the environmental analysis.

"I think he understands that," Kerry said, referring to Baird.

John Kerry to John Baird: No Keystone answer yet