Titanic clash looms over proposed Northern Gateway pipeline

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Here's a little treat for ya MF... An action shot of your favorite boy-band just for you!

Caution: If you're at work right now, you might want to refrain from squealing out loud and upsetting your entire office.




Did you take a sample of those protesting this project and confirm that they also have no opinion of other environmental matters, like Puget?


Yes.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
I'm a little curious why the eco-lobbies aren't calling for an outright ban on lumber mills... Clearly, Burns Lake is an indication of the enviro destruction that society should expect from that entire sector.

Ridiculous isn't it! Last I heard wood is a renewable resource and in the process is producing oxygen! :smile:

Absolutely!

None of the eco-tards are picketing the province of BC and city of Victoria for dumping 10's of thousands of liters of raw sewage into Puget sound every day... Over a hundred years of blatant abuse to ole Mother Gaia and not a peep out of these retards, but think about anything that is remotely related to oil and they scream like a pack of little girls at a Justin Beiber concert.

Hypocrites - all of 'em

I think you better take another gander at your geography book- Puget Sound is about 80 miles away close to Seattle Wash. Victoria is on Juan de Fuca Strait.
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
28,658
8,187
113
B.C.
Ridiculous isn't it! Last I heard wood is a renewable resource and in the process is producing oxygen! :smile:



I think you better take another gander at your geography book- Puget Sound is about 80 miles away close to Seattle Wash. Victoria is on Juan de Fuca Strait.
I may be wrong but the prevailing currents could push some of the effluent into Puget sound.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
I may be wrong but the prevailing currents could push some of the effluent into Puget sound.

I guess anything is possible seeing turds float, but by the same token effluence being dumped into Puget Sound could be exchanged! :lol:
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
Absolutely!

None of the eco-tards are picketing the province of BC and city of Victoria for dumping 10's of thousands of liters of raw sewage into Puget sound every day... Over a hundred years of blatant abuse to ole Mother Gaia and not a peep out of these retards, but think about anything that is remotely related to oil and they scream like a pack of little girls at a Justin Beiber concert.

Hypocrites - all of 'em

Thats because a significant amount of their funding comes from the idle rich in Victoria that are protesting the cot of having the same quality of sewage treatment as the rest of us. FUnny thing is, if they had built their $hit plant 15 years ago it would be paid for by now and at about 1/3 of todays price.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
Too bad WAC Bennett isn't still around. He would have laid pipe first then do an environmental review while everyone is working and paying taxes so MF can have all his freebees.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
I have often wondered if there would be merit in charging some kind of pipeline fee (the actual P/L company to charge it) directly to the end user to put into a fund to pay for any breeches and/or spills. My belief is that most of the folks that are belly-aching about these 'what-if-worst-case-scenarios' wouldn't moan as loud as they do if they were required to put their money where their mouth is.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
The responsibility to mitigate an accident like a pipeline spill is on the pipeline operator. If it's as safe as the say when they apply, then they should keep their money where their mouth is.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
The responsibility to mitigate an accident like a pipeline spill is on the pipeline operator. If it's as safe as the say when they apply, then they should keep their money where their mouth is.

They have done so in the past and I can't see the practice changing anytime soon.

Generally speaking, the industry points to their (industry) track record which, based on the cumulative record, incorporates far fewer incidents than other forms of delivery.

That said, if there is an interest group that demands further 'assurances', I see no reason why they shouldn't have to pay for it.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
NORTHERN GATEWAY PIPELINE: Not in national interest let alone BC’s

Few without ties to oil industry could say with a straight face that the proposal by Enbridge to build the Northern Gateway pipeline over 800 fish-bearing rivers and streams is in the best interests of Canadians or that it meets the criteria of what constitutes sustainable development.

It is impossible to ignore the significant environmental concerns, which include damage related to the construction of the pipeline as well as the inevitability of oil spills along the pipeline and from 300 oil tankers a year navigating the hazardous waters on the northwest coast of BC. Spills of this nature would jeopardize the fishing and tourism industries in BC, putting tens of thousands of livelihoods and the stability of those communities at risk. The wild salmon economy alone generates $1.7 billion each year in BC.

The Enbridge record of 800 spills since 1998 does little to inspire confidence that a project of this magnitude through such remote and sensitive ecosystems will be managed without incident. The company has yet to clean up the 800,000 gallons of oil it spilled that leaked into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River in July 2010. What is more, the temporary jobs in construction and a handful of permanent jobs we will see in BC after the project is finished hardly makes it worth taking such enormous risks.

Development of the oil sands should take place within the context of a coherent and credible national energy strategy that will be good for the Canadian economy and good for our environment, one that has a transition to green energy and renewable technologies at its core. That’s where real and lasting jobs can be created in more localized economies across the country. It is unacceptable that this Conservative government chases one raw bitumen pipeline project after another which serves only corporate profit interests to the detriment of our national interests.

I believe that the environmental assessment process must include the voices of anyone who has a stake in the outcome. The Harper government and its spin doctors have been declaring opponents to this project as “radicals” and trying to slander them as representing foreign interests. It is entirely hypocritical that Mr. Harper should consider foreign oil interests his friends while branding people who care about our shared global environment as his enemies. This is especially true since in many cases the companies that are profiting from oil-sands development are themselves partially foreign owned.

Climate change will not respect international borders and since per-barrel emissions in the oil sands will only continue to rise, all nations have an interest in how Canada develops this resource. There is nothing radical about wanting to pass on a healthy environment to future generations and for having an expectation that our precious and finite natural resources be developed in a sustainable manner with maximum benefits to Canadians. What is radical is Harper’s short-sighted evisceration of the laws meant to protect our environment, the firing of government scientists and pulling Canada out of international efforts to fight catastrophic climate change.

The government’s moves to abrogate its duty to ensure comprehensive environmental assessments for major projects, in what it had assured Canadians would be an arms-length and independent joint review panel process, must continue to be challenged.

NORTHERN GATEWAY PIPELINE: Not in national interest let alone BC
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Does an Op/Ed from the NDP really count as any real decisive kind of gauge on this issue?

All opinions are welcome.

But since you believe that a politician can't speak on the issue, I will remind you of your own rule once Harper pipes up your agenda.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Enbridge didn't have 800 spills since 1998 confirmed by unbiased sources, cap'n morgain and taxslave.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Does when it backs your claim.

Just another example of one that scours the net in search of factoids that support a sinking claim... Goebbels has taught them well.


Question is which part of the NDP. The part that is controlled by greenies or the part that claims to represent working people?


Ain't that the interesting part though.... Why, I can still Jack in full campaign mode with his shirt sleeves carefully rolled-up, fist pumping the air in proclaiming his desire to 'fight for the working man'.

Let's take a look-see at if this Dipper MP is following in Jocko's foot steps:
Rossland News - Unemployment rate holds steady

The Kootenay unemployment rate was essentially unchanged last month, coming in at 8.4 per cent versus 8.3 per cent in January.

Almost 10% of the local population, looks like he has some more work to do, eh?