Titanic clash looms over proposed Northern Gateway pipeline

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Now, now boys what are we squabbling about? Everyone has different opinions on debatable matters! :lol:

For a balanced approach on this project (after determining if it's financially feasible) you go ahead and build the bloody thing, with expert environmentalists (I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find a few) on board, who at a moments notice can shut the project down until the problem is addressed. We've been able to put men on the moon for 40 years, can't we build and install pipe? :lol:
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
We've been able to put men on the moon for 40 years, can't we build and install pipe? :lol:

A balanced view would also consider should it be built. Just because we can do something doesn't mean it should be done. The people whose lives will be most affected by any risks should therefore get a weighted voice on that matter.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Therein lies the difference between you and I. I have no problem seeking a balanced view of the project, industry, sector, etc.



A balanced view would also consider should it be built. Just because we can do something doesn't mean it should be done.

Is it any surprise that the laissez-faire confuse can with should?

They've been ideologically trained since the Cold War that Friedman is the second coming of Christ.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
A balanced view would also consider should it be built. Just because we can do something doesn't mean it should be done. The people whose lives will be most affected by any risks should therefore get a weighted voice on that matter.

I think that is the crux of this entire discussion, which I at least partly addressed in my post. In mentioning the financial aspect, I was alluring to the benefits to both the communities involved and the country. :smile:
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
I think that is the crux of this entire discussion, which I at least partly addressed in my post. In mentioning the financial aspect, I was alluring to the benefits to both the communities involved and the country. :smile:

Yes, but that's only one part of the financial aspect. There are costs and benefits, and there are risks. The risk of an event happening, and the consequences of an event happening, will dictate how exactly it should be mitigated, if it even can. That's a standard of risk analysis. In the past, petitioners and regulators have been to complacent to accept high risk events as lower in the risk matrix.

 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Yes, but that's only one part of the financial aspect. There are costs and benefits, and there are risks. The risk of an event happening, and the consequences of an event happening, will dictate how exactly it should be mitigated, if it even can. That's a standard of risk analysis. In the past, petitioners and regulators have been to complacent to accept high risk events as lower in the risk matrix.



Risk analysis is very utilitarian - which at least morally, is the correct way to approach this situation.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Yes, but that's only one part of the financial aspect. There are costs and benefits, and there are risks. The risk of an event happening, and the consequences of an event happening, will dictate how exactly it should be mitigated, if it even can. That's a standard of risk analysis. In the past, petitioners and regulators have been to complacent to accept high risk events as lower in the risk matrix.


It's not like it's a project that hasn't been done before. On all major construction a log is kept, which I would imagine access to would be available outlining risks and solutions. A chart like the one shown is virtually meaningless (probably a good sample for teaching grade 2s about charts) More germaine would be charts showing events that have actually happened and what was done about them! :smile:
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Whatever :lol:

If you sought a balanced view you would respond to criticisms in a balanced fashion, instead of stating someone is an ecotard and a disgruntled former employee.

Moving the goal posts a wee bit are we?

You asked me to back up my statements so I did.

Am I to assume that you don't approve of the source or the notion that there are many other opinions that differ from yours?

Yes. You're talking about an American political decision on a different pipeline, and Hughes was examining reserves, pace of growth, and economic factors in Canada that surround the issues for the pipeline through Canada.

Smarten up. Or read something at least before you go blabbing nonsense.

No. The enviro regulations and process are extremely close to one another. The fact that KXL was approved (initially) provides an idea of the likely outcome for Northern Gateway.

Perhaps you might consider taking some of your own advice and learning more about the industry, technology and process.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Moving the goal posts a wee bit are we?

You asked me to back up my statements so I did.

Your backup consisted of posting a link to the party who's creating the pipeline. This hardly qualifies as an independent or balanced response - especially considering how you brushed off a contrary opinion from someone who works in the petrol industry and assume that all contrary opinion is funded by eco lobbies.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/01/20/crack-in-the-pipe-dream/
 
Last edited:

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
If you are asking for my opinion, I've stated it in many occasions.

We all know your opinion.

Are you also going to write off this MacLeans article as eco funded as well?

Crack in the Northern Gateway pipe dream

The business case for Enbridge’s $5.5-billion, twinned Northern Gateway pipeline, which would send Canadian crude bound for Asia to the B.C. coast, seems sound: the project could inject $270 billion into Canada’s GDP while fetching $10 more per barrel than the oil gets when transported south, to the country’s current, lone oil customer. But politics, it became clear as an environmental review launched last week in Kitimat, B.C., may yet derail the pipeline dream—its importance to the country’s financial future notwithstanding.

Ottawa’s smoke-and-mirrors strategy of bashing the project’s foreign critics, which was timed to the hearing’s launch on B.C.’s soggy, northwest coast, allows Canadian politicians to avoid pointing fingers at what really stands in their way: British Columbia First Nations, empowered by a decade and a half of legal victories that have granted them a significant say over land in their traditional territories. The powerful Wet’suwet’en, who vigorously fought a land claim over 13 years, culminating in 1997’s landmark Delgamuukw ruling establishing the existence of Aboriginal title in B.C., are among dozens of bands that oppose the project, and call its proposed, 1,176-km route home. “It’s going to get ugly,” says Terry Teegee, vice-tribal chief of the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council. “Battle lines have been drawn.”

Legally, experts say, B.C. bands have more clout than those outside the province, thanks partly to an accident of history. Few entered treaties with the Crown, unlike First Nations elsewhere in the country; and since they never signed away title, courts now require their input when resources are extracted from their traditional lands.

Look no further than 2007’s Tsilhqot’in ruling to understand what that means, even for projects the government considers fiscally necessary. The B.C. Supreme Court found the First Nation had proved title over 2,000 sq. km of valuable real estate northeast of Vancouver, stopping just short of granting it full ownership. That ruling put a stop, in the short term, to clear-cut logging plans, since they would interfere with the band’s trapping rights.

The decision’s longer-term impacts surfaced last year. Years ago, Taseko Mines Ltd., a mining firm based in Vancouver, applied to develop one of the country’s largest copper-gold deposits near Williams Lake, in B.C.’s struggling central interior. The proposed $3-billion mine, however, required the draining of Fish Lake, which the Tsilhqot’in consider sacred. Although B.C. approved the massive project, which received the backing of two premiers and promised tens of thousands of new jobs, Ottawa, in November 2010, rejected it because it would impact the Tsilhqot’in, and fish stocks. Legally, the government didn’t have much of a choice.

Contrast this with economic development in B.C.’s Treaty 8 area: one of the few corners of the province under treaty. The region, east of the Rockies, is crisscrossed with oil and natural gas pipelines, and has a 20-year history with the industry.

Given the pipeline’s entire proposed route is across untreatied land, and how disruptive and potentially harmful the Northern Gateway project portends to be, this battle, even if it receives the environmental okay, will inevitably be fought all the way to the Supreme Court, taking years to resolve, says Carleton University’s Rodney Nelson. Indeed, chiefs representing more than 20 First Nations contacted by Maclean’s acknowledge they’re planning to file suit if the project is allowed to proceed.

Litigating a multi-year court fight would be extraordinarily costly, but several front-line environmental opponents said their organizations and private donors are being lined up to help fund potential suits on behalf of First Nations. Direct action is also in the works. Supporters, along with “little, old grannies” from Aboriginal communities across the province have volunteered to be arrested, according to the Wilderness Committee’s Ben West; plans to erect traditional longhouses along the length of the proposed route are being readied. Clearly, B.C., which saw a grassroots uprising overturn the harmonized sales tax a year ago, is gearing up for its biggest environmental battle, an international cause célèbre that would make 1993’s epic fight for Clayoquot Sound look like child’s play.

This time, opponents say, the stakes are even higher. “One spill,” says Art Sterritt, executive director of the Coastal First Nations, “would spell the end of life as we know it in the Great Bear Rainforest,” a wild, misty stretch of jagged inlets and moss-cloaked trees, rich with whales and wolves, running 400 km along B.C.’s coast to the Alaska border.

But a larger stakeholder than even the several thousand natives living in its path has yet to weigh in: Victoria. Perhaps the only question more complex than the legality of the megaproject is the tangled domestic political equation facing B.C.’s pro-development, pro-business, Liberal government. What seems an uncontroversial decision to Alberta, which stands to gain almost all the pipeline’s rich rewards, is tricky for B.C., which is being asked to swallow most of the risk—a tanker spill or burst pipe.

Premier Christy Clark, who is legally bound to go to the polls by next year, has yet to take a public stance. “We have to get the facts out on the table,” she said last week, claiming not to want to “prejudge the outcome” of the ongoing review. With three-quarters of British Columbians opposing oil tankers on the coast, it would seem a pretty safe place to ride out what promises to be a bruising debate.

Except Clark’s Liberals rely on a fractious alliance of federal Liberals and Tories. The coalition faces a surging Conservative party on the right, its greatest threat since the ’90s, when the so-called free enterprise alliance collapsed, paving the way for an NDP rout.

Happily benefiting from Clark’s absence, for now, is Conservative party leader John Cummins. The former Tory MP is heading up the pipeline’s local support squad, helping him pick off Liberal votes in hard-fought rural ridings where even a few hundred Tory ballots could tip the balance in favour of the Opposition NDP.

Liberals are “frankly terrified of Cummins,” says Simon Fraser University’s Royce Koop; the Conservative party has been polling at 20 per cent since he took over six months ago, up from single digits, where it languished throughout the past decade.

The right-wing bickering plays nicely into the hands of the NDP and its popular new leader, Adrian Dix, says University of British Columbia political scientist Michael Byers. The party, which opposes the pipeline, sits at 40 per cent in the polls, ahead of the Liberals at 31 per cent.

The Liberals took the last election by neutralizing the NDP; in implementing a carbon tax, they earned the support even of Greens like David Suzuki. This time around, the NDP, which is already putting out slick, direct mailers pairing images of rusty, hulking tankers with pristine coastline, is making sure the Green vote remains with New Democrats.

For now, Clark, seeking a rare, fourth term for the Liberals, is working on strengthening her position,

without coming off the Gateway fence. In the last week, she named long-time Alberta Tory strategist Ken Boessenkool her new chief of staff, and announced a social conservative with deep Reform-Tory roots will contest a Fraser Valley by-election. She punctuated that right shift by bringing Stephen Harper to her son Hamish’s atom hockey game, highlighting their growing comfort.

Two days later, on CBC’s The House, Clark deviated from her carefully neutral Northern Gateway path, attacking the project’s critics as “foreign groups, coming in and meddling in our politics.”

The reality is that even as Harper suggests Canada is on the cusp of a boom, regional politics and Aboriginal opposition could mean he will be an old man before the pipeline proceeds. Consider the endless debates over the Mackenzie Valley pipeline through the Northwest Territories. There, too, the federal government was pushing hard for development, notes Byers, promising vast riches, if only Canada could get its gas to the international market. There, too, the greatest impediment was Aboriginal rights. Laws governing those rights have grown more, not less, complex since the ’70s. That pipeline never got built. It’s far from certain the Northern Gateway pipeline ever will, either.

Crack in the Northern Gateway pipe dream - Canada - Macleans.ca
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Learn about the industry and the business and you'll quickly realize that these process' are legnthy and complicated, but in the end - relatively predictable.

We are early on into this endeavor, there will be ebbs and flows on this. You can safely bet that Enbridge (or TCPL for that matter) didn't waste a bunch of time and cash on pursuing a 'pipe dream'... These people would not have parted with one thin dime had they thought that the odds were not strongly in their favour.

That said, considering that the PM has thrown his weight behind the project, I say that the odds just got a little better.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
These people would not have parted with one thin dime had they thought that the odds were not strongly in their favour.

This says nothing about the credibility of the project.

But, hey, Enbridge sure sounds confident now..


Keystone denial a threat to Gateway line: Enbridge

CALGARY, Alberta (Reuters) - The head of pipeline company Enbridge Inc (ENB.TO: Quote) said on Wednesday that the Obama administration's rejection of the Keystone XL line may be a threat to other new pipeline projects, including its planned C$5.5. billion ($5.45 billion) Northern Gateway line.

Chief Executive Pat Daniel conceded that Enbridge, whose lines carry the bulk of Canada's crude exports to the United States, may see some short term benefit from the U.S. decision on Wednesday to deny TransCanada Corp's (TRP.TO: Quote) Keystone XL oil line a presidential permit allowing construction.

However he told an investment conference that Enbridge, Canada's No. 2 pipeline company, supports TransCanada's project and now worries that the coalition of environmental groups that opposed Keystone XL will now take aim at Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline, which would take oil sands crude from Alberta to a deepwater port in British Columbia.

"To have (Keystone XL) turned down for the reasons being indicated is horrible for our industry and it's a horrible precedent," Daniel said at an investment conference. "It's bad in terms of future approvals. It only will embolden those opposed to Gateway and other new project developments."

The Obama administration declined to authorize construction of the $7 billion Alberta-to-Texas Keystone XL line because there was not enough time to review an alternative route that would avoid a sensitive aquifer in Nebraska, within a 60-day window set by Congress.

However others said a series of widespread protests by environmental groups convinced the administration it would be politically unwise to approve the project.

The Northern Gateway project faces similar opposition from environmental and native groups concerned that the line, and the extra tanker traffic it generates, would threaten the pristine wilderness of northern British Columbia.

More than 4,000 people have registered to speak at regulatory hearings that began earlier this month. The process was extended late last year by about 12 months to the end of 2013 to accommodate everyone.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCATRE80I1YQ20120119?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
If you are asking for my opinion, I've stated it in many occasions.

In a concrete discussion like this are we interested in opinions or is it facts that we need? Opinions are good for nebulous topics or even concrete topics that don't concern US. :smile: