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?