Really Flossy... You post more crappy and redundant threads than anyone that I've ever come across.
Is this a sad little cry for help?
Northern Gateway pipeline opposed by 50% in B.C
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Really Flossy... You post more crappy and redundant threads than anyone that I've ever come across.
Is this a sad little cry for help?
Oh Boy! Oh Boy! Looks like we have us a bonerfied war betwixed the Green Bolsheviks and the Free Market Fascists brewing this mornin'. Martha, put on a big batch o' pop corn!
Has anyone besides me ever been to Bella Bella? Or anywhere else in the mid coast.
Not quite, made it into Bella Coola, years ago, the wife was on the floor boards of the truck going down "the hill". :lol: I think when we took the ferry from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert the boat stopped at Ocean Falls (but I was drunk by then)
opposed by 50% of BC residents.. which 50%.. I'm a BC resident and they didn't as me.. I'm for it..
Did you know Canada has the production process for all of this Sand oil product? The pipe line is a smooth way for the Us oil processors to pipe it down. process it in antiquated refineries and then sell it all off on the foreign market? They call it "creating jobs." I call it corportate greed. Right now Canada processes about 67% of all petroleum products consumed on the North American continent. Look out for US greed in their corporate structure! They are not friends with Canada.
The ones complaining should look at how it would be done in other nations and thank themselves that we do have the regs that are in place. Whatever port they used they should get rid or all the obstacles that can cause problem, of that us a rock then remove it to a certain depth and using the same stuff ant decent sized airport uses the command and control could be done from the shipping terminal and handed off only when at the 12 mile limit (or whatever). Wouldn't loading at Stewart (rather than Van help the ships use a Northern route to China To follow the current we should also be shipping south from there, California or Australia, South and Central America already have oil and money, they need some manufactured goods such as could be made by having Canada do it at the same price, be it done in Alberta and shipped through BC of BC build the facilities to replace a crashed fishing industry to the standards that would still help the fish recover. So clean that the empty tankers could be dropping off fish-food. Van is already set up to handle finished goods in containers. Petroleum made goods could be loaded from further up the coast. (raw plastic pellets over liquid goods)
We still need to find a way to utilize all the clean sand. Sand and peat used to be used as a base for topsoil in places where clay was almost to ground level.
I assume you would want it at Syn-crude standards rather than Brazil when Texaco first operated there.
We still need to find a way to utilize all the clean sand. Sand and peat used to be used as a base for topsoil in places where clay was almost to ground level.
I assume you would want it at Syn-crude standards rather than Brazil when Texaco first operated there.
Yep. A few places on the coast actually; Namu, Waglisla, etc. Even Ocean Falls before the population dropped from almost 2000 to less than 100. hehe It was a while ago.
Greed is too powerful to stop the pipeline. Best just deal with it and accept the resulting inevitable pollution.
It's time for an oil change, Canada
Over the past decade, rising crude oil prices and strong foreign demand have combined to generate significant resource wealth in Canada and Saskatchewan, but this bonanza also contributed to economic challenges. While several studies released during the past two years extol the economic benefits of continued rapid expansion and export of Canada's crude oil resources, one leading economist is questioning whether the benefit numbers actually make sense.
Robyn Allan, a former CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and now an independent economist, recently released an analysis of Canadian Oil Expansion Economics. Allan reviews the pro-development studies and examines whether or not the economic benefits forecast is reliable and useful. What her review revealed is that the reports that favour gung ho oil development in general, and the Northern Gateway pipeline in particular, "present a biased narrative where industry benefits are falsely estimated while economic, social and environmental costs are ignored."
Allan's critical analysis of four reports, including Enbridge's Application to the National Energy Board in support of the Northern Gateway pipeline, found that they suffer from serious weaknesses that render the results not only unreliable, but unusable."
She says the reports rely on the inappropriate use of an Input Output model that fails to take into account negative economic, social and environmental outputs; rely on a fixed and artificially low Canadian dollar over long time periods; and fail to recognize the negative impact higher oil prices have on the Canadian economy as a whole. I don't have room even to summarize her analysis here, but you may wish to read it at Allan's website (www. robynallan.com).
The key thing is that those making the case for rapid oil expansion are the oil companies themselves and their industry supporters. Good for them, but caveat emptor - government and the public should not accept their argument uncritically. Government exists to protect the public interest - not one privileged segment of it - and the public should wake up and make its interest known.
Government is very much in the thrall of the oil industry, which spends millions on political contributions and lobbying efforts to influence the political agenda in ways contrary to the long-term interest of the public and the planet. That's why the organization Oil Change International (OCI) (priceofoil.org) is calling for a "Separation of Oil and State." They suggest governments begin this separation by cutting perverse subsidies to the hugely profitable oil sector.
Global fossil fuel subsidies most likely total between $750 billion and $1 trillion per year - significantly more than the widely publicized estimate of $500 billion, according to OCI. Canada and the provinces spend close to $2 billion a year on fossil fuel subsidies that unfairly advantage polluting energy sources over renewable alternatives.
Reducing fossil fuel subsidies is required to make renewable energy resources more competitive. OCI argues that climate change is best tackled through structural changes like cutting subsidies rather than by focusing simply on emissions output.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates, for example, that if global fossil fuel consumption subsidies were phased out by 2020, carbon dioxide emissions could be reduced by as much as 4.7 per cent.
Beyond subsidies, there are many other hidden costs to our oil addiction. According to the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S., fossil fuel use in that country results in $120 billion in health care and pollution costs annually. And one study suggests that the United States spends at least $1.6 trillion annually on maintaining infrastructure for its current fossil fuel transportation regime, money that could otherwise be invested in cleaner transportation options such as high-speed rail.
It is not as if governments don't see this problem. In 2009, the G20 agreed to reduce global fossil fuel subsidies, a commitment also adopted by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).
As of 2010, however, no country had reduced subsidies in response to the agreement. The language of the G20 statement remains weak, and many participating countries have under-reported the amount of subsidies they provide.
Why are governments taking action on their own commitment? Because they are married to big oil.
It's time for an oil change, Canada
Over the past decade, rising crude oil prices and strong foreign demand have combined to generate significant resource wealth in Canada and Saskatchewan, but this bonanza also contributed to economic challenges. While several studies released during the past two years extol the economic benefits of continued rapid expansion and export of Canada's crude oil resources, one leading economist is questioning whether the benefit numbers actually make sense.
Robyn Allan, a former CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and now an independent economist, recently released an analysis of Canadian Oil Expansion Economics. Allan reviews the pro-development studies and examines whether or not the economic benefits forecast is reliable and useful. What her review revealed is that the reports that favour gung ho oil development in general, and the Northern Gateway pipeline in particular, "present a biased narrative where industry benefits are falsely estimated while economic, social and environmental costs are ignored."
Allan's critical analysis of four reports, including Enbridge's Application to the National Energy Board in support of the Northern Gateway pipeline, found that they suffer from serious weaknesses that render the results not only unreliable, but unusable."
She says the reports rely on the inappropriate use of an Input Output model that fails to take into account negative economic, social and environmental outputs; rely on a fixed and artificially low Canadian dollar over long time periods; and fail to recognize the negative impact higher oil prices have on the Canadian economy as a whole. I don't have room even to summarize her analysis here, but you may wish to read it at Allan's website (www. robynallan.com).
The key thing is that those making the case for rapid oil expansion are the oil companies themselves and their industry supporters. Good for them, but caveat emptor - government and the public should not accept their argument uncritically. Government exists to protect the public interest - not one privileged segment of it - and the public should wake up and make its interest known.
Government is very much in the thrall of the oil industry, which spends millions on political contributions and lobbying efforts to influence the political agenda in ways contrary to the long-term interest of the public and the planet. That's why the organization Oil Change International (OCI) (priceofoil.org) is calling for a "Separation of Oil and State." They suggest governments begin this separation by cutting perverse subsidies to the hugely profitable oil sector.
Global fossil fuel subsidies most likely total between $750 billion and $1 trillion per year - significantly more than the widely publicized estimate of $500 billion, according to OCI. Canada and the provinces spend close to $2 billion a year on fossil fuel subsidies that unfairly advantage polluting energy sources over renewable alternatives.
Reducing fossil fuel subsidies is required to make renewable energy resources more competitive. OCI argues that climate change is best tackled through structural changes like cutting subsidies rather than by focusing simply on emissions output.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates, for example, that if global fossil fuel consumption subsidies were phased out by 2020, carbon dioxide emissions could be reduced by as much as 4.7 per cent.
Beyond subsidies, there are many other hidden costs to our oil addiction. According to the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S., fossil fuel use in that country results in $120 billion in health care and pollution costs annually. And one study suggests that the United States spends at least $1.6 trillion annually on maintaining infrastructure for its current fossil fuel transportation regime, money that could otherwise be invested in cleaner transportation options such as high-speed rail.
It is not as if governments don't see this problem. In 2009, the G20 agreed to reduce global fossil fuel subsidies, a commitment also adopted by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).
As of 2010, however, no country had reduced subsidies in response to the agreement. The language of the G20 statement remains weak, and many participating countries have under-reported the amount of subsidies they provide.
Why are governments taking action on their own commitment? Because they are married to big oil.
It's time for an oil change, Canada
It does not matter what British Columbians think of it; I'd be more concenred with what locals think of it. If the local governents in those towns through which it cuts through each support it, then I'd say let it go through. If any local government does not agree, then it does not go through that town. It would seem simple enough. And to ensure local governments have access to all the facts, give them access to any information Environment Canada might have on the subject. But in the end, let the locals decide.
I would see though that governments need to sell non-renewable Crown resources to companies at a more reasonable price. Right now I get the impression that they're selling them off too cheaply.
I personally think it should be a federal decision (perhaps a global one) considering the scope and breadth of the project, but Harper has now set up environmental assessments to be a choice between provincial or federal responsibility.
If it's a provincial decision and the NDP win the next election - don't expect this pipeline to go through.
Northern Gateway pipeline puts British Columbia at oil spill risk: New Democrats
Last edited: