Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline - Pro's and Con's

[Foxsea]

so the possibility of eliminating the boreal forests in the size of the state of florida; the use of apparently one of the most destructive oil extraction techniques ever devised; exterpatation of any number of animal species; wiping out one of the largest CO2 sinks in the world; so gunsmith, who is telling the lies?

greenpeace? all i can say is this group got the moral objective to the front with regard to whaling. and as the quote i posted in another thread, without that moral incentive, removing net pens and saving wild salmon is not going to happen. so pick you environmental group, get'um working for all of canada.

Yup - and very good points, Charlie and Reelfast!
But here we go again with the loaded language ("...lies???") and being intentionally divisive. Again, sorry - I made a mistake one morning by inserting an obviously ridiculous number (should have put my glasses on). I got Gunsmith wound up and distracted from the true point of this thread - determining that, on balance, there is nothing good coming to Canada or B.C., or our environment from the pipeline or the irresponsible way big corporations handle resource extraction.
Onward...

 

[reelfast]

determining that, on balance, there is nothing good coming to Canada or B.C., or our environment from the pipeline or the irresponsible way big corporations handle resource extraction.
Onward...

right on foxsea.

you can also review the michigan spill of oil sands into one of their most productive salmon rivers. that happened two years ago and because of the tar nature of what got spilled, it has yet to be cleaned up. will this proposed pipeline spill?? you bet, it's just a matter of time and place and once it does, the environmental damage will not be undone for a very long time.

 

[Gunsmith]

I am not saying that isn't so, I am still questioning the numbers, even the ones Charlie has put out. Just go to the state atlas and the province atlas and compare the numbers, something doesn't jive. I am not saying it is good as I do question the process and the land use.
As to the Michigan spill there is still no excuse but all of the blame seems to fall on Enbridge's shoulders even though it was purchased not too long ago from another company and I do believe the oil is the same dirty oil everybody uses.
You do sit back and chuck stones with venom so you will attract rebuttals when the numbers are questionable.

so the possibility of eliminating the boreal forests in the size of the state of florida; the use of apparently one of the most destructive oil extraction techniques ever devised; exterpatation of any number of animal species; wiping out one of the largest CO2 sinks in the world; so gunsmith, who is telling the lies?

greenpeace? all i can say is this group got the moral objective to the front with regard to whaling. and as the quote i posted in another thread, without that moral incentive, removing net pens and saving wild salmon is not going to happen. so pick you environmental group, get'um working for all of canada.

 

[Gunsmith]

Above all opinions the Gateway project should not go ahead as there is no reason in this world to risk what they intend to risk with this project.

 

[Charlie]

so the possibility of eliminating the boreal forests in the size of the state of florida; the use of apparently one of the most destructive oil extraction techniques ever devised; exterpatation of any number of animal species; wiping out one of the largest CO2 sinks in the world; so gunsmith, who is telling the lies?

I am aware of how the term “lies” and “liar” began here; however, I believe no one has intentionally done either so, why don’t we just let using those terms go away?

Don’t lose sight that study is focusing and addressing “future potential” problems and is not focusing on what is currently happening – it is a future possibility!

Yup - and very good points, Charlie and Reelfast!

Charlie only commented on "future possibilities".

I am not saying that isn't so, I am still questioning the numbers, even the ones Charlie has put out

Charlie hasn't put out any numbers - just posted a study with both current and future numbers and I have no clue is any of those numbers are accurate! However, remember that study focused on future possibility!

There really does appear to be three topics addressed here:

1) The Northern Gateway Pipeline project. To that my answer there simple. Do everything and everything in your power to STOP that pipeline! There currently is absolutely positivity – NO REWARD to the citizens of British Columbia and British Columbia is accepting all the - RISK! It would be very wise to jump all on and over the points in that very well written ‘open letter written to Premier Clark by Robyn Allan’ especially this, “there is ‘no confidence’ that the Government of Canada will make decisions that will be in the best public interest of the residents of this province.”

2) The “Current” existing impacts of In Situ Oil Sands Development on Alberta’s Boreal Forest. The oil sand development is already in place, as ‘Foxsea’ stated – ‘move on’. No one or anything is going to change what is already done, remove, or stop the current operations. If one were to check the citizens of Alberta did and are receiving a “reward” and IMHO it happens to worth their “risk”! That is only “MY” opinion! However, if one reads that study referred they would probably have to agree with ‘gunsmith’ and “right now” logging probably is actually doing more harm.

3) Now we have the “future” impacts of In Situ Oil Sands Development on Alberta’s Boreal Forest – These are three completely separate issues. And 3) is the ONLY thing Charlie specifically pointed out and commented on - "future" impacts. Again, Charlie did NOT provide any “numbers” just the study, which does provide both current and future numbers and never commented on either. Now Charlie does agree “without future proper planning and controls” the impacts of in Situ Oil Sands Development on Alberta’s Boreal Forest’ could be “potentially devastating.” That is also where that study is focusing, addressing and referring. It is NOT what is currently happening.

 

[Gunsmith]

Agreed Charlie. In my search for facts I have come across some interesting facts that have become eye openers. I agree with the fight we have at hand and where to start is a big problem and we do waste a lot time sniping at each other over comments made but one thing we should be well aware of is that this fight began a long time ago over different issues and everytime we focus on one front we leave another exposed.

 

[Charlie]

Agreed Charlie. In my search for facts I have come across some interesting facts that have become eye openers. I agree with the fight we have at hand and where to start is a big problem and we do waste a lot time sniping at each other over comments made but one thing we should be well aware of is that this fight began a long time ago over different issues and everytime we focus on one front we leave another exposed.

FYI... I really haven't looked into it, but I just might have question one's objection to "reversing the flow" of an "existing pipeline" to supply "eastern Canada," who is currently importing their oil and being in favor of building two "new pipelines" across BC to ONLY support oil sales to China "? That be who... that be every indication of "loss of confidence"!

 

[Gunsmith]

I don't know why there would be any objection other than a rivalry between Ontario and Alberta or the NEP OF THE 70'S. Maybe they would make less money per barrel.

 

[lorneparker1]

so the possibility of eliminating the boreal forests in the size of the state of florida; the use of apparently one of the most destructive oil extraction techniques ever devised; exterpatation of any number of animal species; wiping out one of the largest CO2 sinks in the world; so gunsmith, who is telling the lies?

greenpeace? all i can say is this group got the moral objective to the front with regard to whaling. and as the quote i posted in another thread, without that moral incentive, removing net pens and saving wild salmon is not going to happen. so pick you environmental group, get'um working for all of canada.

I dont have much to add, besides i would never support greenpeace!

 

[Jahfreddy]

I don't know why there would be any objection other than a rivalry between Ontario and Alberta or the NEP OF THE 70'S. Maybe they would make less money per barrel.

Gunsmith, if memory serves, I do believe there is a difference in the amount of money that would be made per barrel exporting to China vs piping it to Ontario. Again, if memory serves, it was something like 20%.

To everyone out there, please don't crucify me if my facts are wrong - I'm going to put it out as a "to the best of my recollection" type of comment.

That being said, it seems absurd that we are importing oil in one part of the country and exporting in another.

Canada is one of the few (or only) countries(y) in the world that can be entirely self-sufficient.


In short - No Reward for ALL of the Risk?!?!?! Huh?

 

[Charlie]

This might surprise you?

 

[-steelhead-]

Who's voting for the NDP now? I've never... but who knows:

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/...line_120430/20120430/?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

The Canadian Press

Updated: Mon. Apr. 30 2012 10:29 PM ET

British Columbia's New Democrats have formally registered opposition to Enbridge's (TSX:ENB) controversial proposal to build a pipeline from the Alberta oil sands to a port in northern B.C., arguing the risks outweigh the benefits.

Official Opposition leader Adrian Dix and 35 MLAs signed the 11-page letter sent on Monday to the National Energy Board's joint review panel, which is tasked with assessing the Northern Gateway project.

"Under the Enbridge proposal, British Columbia would assume almost all the project's risk, yet would see only a fraction of the benefits," said Dix in a release. "By any measure, such a high-risk, low-return approach simply isn't in B.C.'s interests."

In January, a three-member panel began public hearings to asses the environmental effects of the $5.5 billion plan to transport crude through a 1,177-kilometre twin pipeline for collection by huge oil tankers that will ship it to Asia and the United States.

A host of groups have already voiced concerns over the massive undertaking, complete with a variety of protest rallies.

That includes a declaration signed by more than 60 B.C. First Nations and aboriginal organizations, and more opposition from at least B.C. three cities and a regional district. The Union of B.C. Municipalities has also passed a motion against the project.

The governing B.C. Liberals have said they're waiting for the panel's report before taking a stand.

Within the letter, the NDP lists six key concerns that prompted its conclusion.

It says that lifting the current oil tanker moratorium will put B.C.'s coastline in jeopardy, could create danger for habitats in the nearly 800 streams it must cross and would severely affect First Nations communities if a spill occurred.

It also says oil sands-related development would generate greenhouse gas emissions that will contribute to climate change, provides few long-term or sustainable economic benefits and would likely increase oil prices for Canadian consumers.

"While we acknowledge the role of the federal government in regulating interprovincial pipelines and marine transportation, we strongly emphasize the responsibility of the provincial government both to represent and to protect the interests of British Columbia and British Columbians at every opportunity," says the letter.

"We are very concerned that the Province has not used its full powers to do this."

Enbridge has said the project will generate jobs while being built and operated safely.

Four NDP MLAs are participating in the joint review panel process, which is expected to hand a recommendation over to the federal Conservative government in late 2013.

If the process wraps on schedule, it will come in just under 24 months. More than 4,300 individuals and groups have registered to speak at the hearings across B.C. and Alberta

 

[Gunsmith]

Yes a difference worth spending billions for. Only problem is BC is being the one the big money is putting the risk on.

Gunsmith, if memory serves, I do believe there is a difference in the amount of money that would be made per barrel exporting to China vs piping it to Ontario. Again, if memory serves, it was something like 20%.

To everyone out there, please don't crucify me if my facts are wrong - I'm going to put it out as a "to the best of my recollection" type of comment.

That being said, it seems absurd that we are importing oil in one part of the country and exporting in another.

Canada is one of the few (or only) countries(y) in the world that can be entirely self-sufficient.


In short - No Reward for ALL of the Risk?!?!?! Huh?

 

[bushwackin]

How many mountain ranges is the pipeline supposed to cross again? I read it before but can't remember

 

[GLG]

How many mountain ranges is the pipeline supposed to cross again? I read it before but can't remember

I head 2 mountain ranges but I think it's mountains from the border of Alberta all the way to the coast. There are valleys but none that are really big.
GLG

 

[bushwackin]

I head 2 mountain ranges but I think it's mountains from the border of Alberta all the way to the coast. There are valleys but none that are really big.
GLG

Any idea how high off the ground the pipe will be? I would think that the thousands and thousands of avalanches every winter would take it out quite often. They can only build avalanche tunnels on the obvious slide paths but every little hill slides and even the smallest avalanche has a devastating impact on anything in it's path. Just seems like such a retarded idea trying to cross the mountains with a pipeline like that, especially that deadly ****

 

[GLG]

Pros: China want's to supply the workers and equipment to build the pipeline.
We would get the cost of building it at discount prices.

Pros: South Korea want's to supply the pipe as long as we ship some oil.
We could keep the cost down by trading oil for pipe.

Pros: Streamline environmental review by removing fish habitat from law.
Law's, who needs stinking laws.

Pros: Get ride of those pesky Americans sticking there noses in our business.
Who needs those guy's anyway. After all they are just our neighbors, friends and cousins.

Pros: Screw the guy's in Quebec and Atlantic Canada and let them buy there oil from OPEC.
Make damn sure that 48% of the oil that is needed in Canada is coming from conflict zones.
After all our arm's sales are looking good and Iran is looking for a fight.

Pros: Government to spend 8 million looking at the books of those anti-Canadian non-profit enviros.
Make work project for those pencil pushers on welfare in Ottawa.

GLG

 

[GLG]

Any idea how high off the ground the pipe will be? I would think that the thousands and thousands of avalanches every winter would take it out quite often. They can only build avalanche tunnels on the obvious slide paths but every little hill slides and even the smallest avalanche has a devastating impact on anything in it's path. Just seems like such a retarded idea trying to cross the mountains with a pipeline like that, especially that deadly ****

They plan on drilling two tunnels through the mountains where the risk is high of avalanche.
They also plan on putting concrete slabs over the pipe where they guess there might be a problem.
I don't know how much of the pipeline will be above ground as all I have read is for it to be underground around 1 meter.
GLG

 

[GLG]

More Pros

Pros: Raise the price of a barrel of oil by 2 to 3 dollars per year.
Those poor oil company's might not need those subsidize if we can give them more money at the pumps.

Pros: Create jobs in the oil cleanup sector.
We could create a whole new industry cleaning our rivers and ocean of the oil when it is spilled.

Pros: Send those FN back to the stone age.
I missed out on the Indian Wars and it sure would be something to see us going at it again.
Perhaps this time we could teach them a lesson, Harper style.

Pros: We could have a new trading partner with Russia.
We need Condensate for one of those pipes to head to Alberta so they can mix it and send it back to the coast down the pipeline then onto China in the tankers.

Pros: New f-35 fighter / bombers so if any of our "new friends" get out of line we can teach them a lesson

Pros: Ottawa would show those "subjects" who is the boss.

GLG

 

[Gunsmith]

All so true GLG nothing for us except the risk. So sad!