Something Wicked This Way Comes - ON THE LINE

walleyes said:
Been busy for a couple days couldn't get in on it for a while.

You know guys I have to admit something,, after having sometime to sit back and analyse this whole thing and to see peoples reaction to the whole project I have to say that I have changed my mind on it. I do agree that there are definitely better places to run a pipeline than across all those hills and rivers. In the end it comes down to one thing,, if the people don't want it they don't want it plain and simple. Supposedly this country is still ran by its people and if the people have spoken then so be it. I for one would hate to see what would happen if there ever was a major break in a line under one of those big rivers or they loose a tanker in the channel,, it just wouldn't be pretty. A line to the east or south would make a lot more sense thats for sure.
Click to expand...

Well Walleyes, that is quite a change around from your early post. That is not an easy thing to do and I very much respect you for that. There are many battles yet in this saga, but most of the people of B.C. do not want this pipeline and therefore it will eventually get turned down.


walleyes said:
Thx for the debate all though I did get a bit hot headed but oh well thats what a good debate is about sometimes no biggie..
It still leaves me wondering though about BC and what the people expect out of there government. It just seems like lately every type of project has been rejected by its people. They have all but shut down the lumber industry between the environmental groups and unions that industry is almost a bust. Hydro electricity looked like a good option for a while but no nobody wants those damn Damns. Commercial fishing is bad cause the ocean can't take that anymore. Fish farming that looked good for while but that has to be shut down cause well thats just no good. I just want to know what is it that people expect to run the place on, BC is not a cheap place to run. Again I will say it, in todays world there has to be risks taken in order to run our society. In any industry there are inherent risk to be taken. People have to ask themselves what type of life style do they want to live and what are the risks you are willing to take to have that life style ?? What lions share of the equalisation payments do people think they are entitled to ??
Click to expand...

You make a lot of points in here. The overall theme you observe playing out in BC is one epitomising the struggle facing all of mankind. How to reconcile economic development and providing for the needs of an exploding world population, while not destroying the ecosystems of the planet on which all life on earth, including us, depend? This is a thin, faint, blurry line to walk and the jury is still out on how it will play out. I will challenge one point in detail. The current state of the logging industry has absolutely nothing to do with environmentalists. This has come about from a witches brew of international economics, increased mechanisation in the woods, decades of over harvesting of the old growth, lack of reforestation and little investment in milling and lumber processing.


walleyes said:
Just to clear up a couple things on the side. Sask does have a good section of the oil sands under it but it is deeper than what is north of Ft Mac. Believe me it is up for sale as well. It is just taking some time to get at it. That oil will be developed using the SAGD process and not open mining. It is slow coming around do to the fact there is nothing in that part of Sask as far as infrastructure goes, there are no roads and no pipelines to tie into. At this point it has all just been exploratory work. Slowly the companies are working there way in there from the AB side. And the oil will leave via lines in place on the AB side.

It has been asked why we don't keep more of the refining here in Canada,, the fact is the money to be made in refining is not that good, very poor in fact, the profit margin is very low. Especially in Canada where in any project of the magnitude to build a plant in the construction it would be Union built and then later Union run the fact remains it just makes more sense to ship the oil out refine it and ship it back very similar to what is happening to the wood in BC. Its cheaper for the companies to ship it out of the country, process it and ship it back in then to process it here,, kind of makes you wonder eh ??
Click to expand...

I believe much of what you say here is true. The irony is that all of this shipping of raw products all over the world to be processed and shipped back is facilitated and enabled by cheap fossil fuel based energy (of course it is only "cheap" because all the economic impacts and dislocations which will occur as a result of global warming do not appear on any balance sheet anywhere). Cheap oil based energy creation is a two edged sword because it enables wealth (for some) while turning the international economics upside down and destroying local manufacturing. (The Dutch Disease http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/02/29/Canadian-Dutch-Disease/ ).
 
"all the economic impacts and dislocations which will occur as a result of global warming do not appear on any balance sheet anywhere"

This is the crux of one of, if not the, biggest problem we are dealing with as a civilization. Good book below that talks a lot about the externalization of costs that lead to a misunderstanding on economics in certain industries (typically environmentally degrading industries) which the lead people/voters to false conclusions. I suggest anyone interested in this stuff check this book out of your local library.

http://www.amazon.ca/Common-Wealth-Jeffrey-Sachs/dp/1594201277
 
p.s. walleyes, it does takes balls to step up and admit you've taken some time to understand others viewpoints and arguments and admit that it has changed yours in some ways. There are a lot of interesting and well-informed people on this forum that I've learned a lot from and the links/info that are scattered throughout this forum are an amazing resource... in addition to the opinions of course.
 
Enbridge in the news again!

http://news.ca.msn.com/local/edmonton/enbridge-canada-us-pipeline-shuts-after-fatal-crash-5

Enbridge Inc. says it has shut down an oil pipeline from Canada to the U.S. after a vehicle accident in Illinois killed two people early Saturday morning.

The collision near New Lenox caused a fire just after 2 a.m. CT in the pumping station and killed two men, according to local reports.

Enbridge, in a statement Sunday, called the incident a "tragic vehicle collision unrelated to our operations."

Three others were reportedly injured in the crash.

It's unclear at this point how much oil has spilled, or when the pipeline will re-open.

It is the second time in less than three weeks that the Calgary company has had to shut down part of its system in the U.S. Midwest because of a leak.

The company has been under scrutiny in recent months as it's proposing to build the Northern Gateway oil pipeline, which would ship oilsands crude to a proposed tanker terminal in British Columbia.

New Lenox is about 50 kilometres southwest of Chicago.
 
More than enough arguement to say no-go. That should be the end of it.
 
Good read cuttlefish.

"tragic vehicle collision unrelated to our operations."

This woman is kidding right? If their operation wasn't there in the first place this would not have been more that a two car collision minus the explosion.
 
nope. not nearly enough research/environmental assessments done as of yet which is just the way the harper and his oily cronies want it. They are trying to push ahead with this stuff as quickly as possible so that by the time the public opinion has realized the extent of the current/potential damage and risk they will simply tell us we've already made all this massive investment in pipelines, etc and signed agreements with china, blah blah blah and there's no going back. It is NOT too late to add a voice to reason to the whole 'developing of the tar sands' issues. Many well informed people are doing great work. It's a big challenge to get the Harper gov't agree and accept science and facts however. That is the ongoing battle. We need to keep informing people and asking ?'s.

charlie415 said:
Doesn't appear enough thought has gone into the research side.
Click to expand...
 
I am against this what I believe is a Devilish project. I am an Albertan and sure the project may give me a few more bucks but it wouldn't be worth it when I don't have a pristine coast to come down to and fish anymore. I would also feel terrible knowing that I supported a project that destroyed the First Nations way of life in BC. Like others have said, sometimes being poorer can be alot better than being rich and living in full guilt and misery.

Also, Harper's government and Canadian citizens would have to pay fortunes to clean up a tanker spill as Enbridge claims they aren't responsible for any oil spill from a tanker.

I am going to write my MLA a letter right away and will likely vote a party during the spring Alberta election that is against the project.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Much of the Anti focus has been on greenhouse gas which the experts can prove through various means that the affect is not as bad as the public thinks it is. Meanwhile behind the scene the real issue gets ignored. The biggest destructive threat is the transportation to the different areas to be processed. The science of safe transportation is left under a rock. The focus is on the plants and not the transporters so for the longest time they went about their business without much attention.
 
Agree with most of your points there gunsmith. The GHG issue is not as big as some people think. However, that's sorta like saying I'm gonna give you a cancer, but it's not the worst type of cancer. It's still horrible for our environment and the continued reliance on rapidly burning fossil fuels is condoned if this NG pipeline is to go ahead. The transport of the bitumen/condensate is the largely overlooked issue as you mention. The proposed NG pipeline would go destroy a path along such remote areas of BC (forests, rivers, mountains, etc) and WHEN (it's not an IF) there are spills it could well be extremely difficult to even access the spill area, let along try to contain and clean up. These companies have proven they can't effectively deal with spills in easy to access areas (Kalamazoo most recent example) and they are flying by the seat of this pants when it comes to spill clean up and DO NOT have the proper plans in place no matter how much assurance they say they have at the outset of the project (read: gulf oil spill). These 2 recent catastrophes should be enough for us to realize that the NG pipeline would be such a massive RISK that it's not worth it.

All of this aside, the debate has been cleverly positioned by those in favour (gov't, china, oil interests) as an Economic VS Environmental issue and we are told this is going to be good for Canadians. This is simply NOT true. Even the most ardent supporters of this project have a hard time clearly explaining the economic benefits to us Canadians. Will some people in Alberta benefit from jobs and will some Oil companies increase profits and will gov't increase it's revenue?? YES. However, this project, and the tar sands development as a whole, needs to incorporate not only the direct positive spin-offs but the direct negative spin-offs as well. Those negatives include: 10's even 100's of thousands and lost manufacturing jobs (dutch disease) across Canada, 10's of thousands of tourism related jobs in BC at stake if/when there is an accident, economic loss from trade as a result of our international reputation going down the toilet. There are many good studies on the economics of the tar sands development and I've yet to see one that indisputably makes this is economic net benefit for Canada as a whole.
 
Same way the first white people to land on Canada's shore fooled the natives by giving them shiny beads and cheap blankets. When they got over the glare it was too late they were surrounded by white people. Now we are the natives and the real natives having been caught once are on to this game and we are slow off the line.
 
That would not help as it would only deprive the guides and outfitters of badly needed income and not affect the pipeline in any way.Calling Albertans names is not productive either.

luctor et emergo said:
What about the potential of a boycott of BC salmon fishing by the many Albertosaurusins that come to BC for fishing?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sharphooks
Hating on Alaskans?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Gong Show
Gong Show
Adler
2024-25 DFO proposal and survey on salmon measures
Replies
51
Views
6K
Dale66
D
IronNoggin
The Way DFO Plays
Replies
6
Views
1K
fish brain
fish brain
OldBlackDog
About that Selective Fishery, by Bob Hooton
Replies
9
Views
711
wildmanyeah
W
IronNoggin
CPAWS
Replies
24
Views
1K
Hardy Guy
H
Back
Top