Something Wicked This Way Comes - ON THE LINE

I'm not in favour of the NG Line in any way but I kind of wonder why it's always the industry that gets the blame, why it's always the big bad oil company or the mining companies fault? Does the ultimate responsibility not lie with the end user? If we didn't buy it they wouldn't sell it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

I listened to a program on the CBC this morning and this data is nowhere near 100% accurate the people who generated the report failed to calculate the vented solution gas from the recovery of other heavy crudes in places like Venezuala and Angola. They just vent all the methane that is produced with their oil to atmosphere.
 
I'm not in favour of the NG Line in any way but I kind of wonder why it's always the industry that gets the blame, why it's always the big bad oil company or the mining companies fault? Does the ultimate responsibility not lie with the end user? If we didn't buy it they wouldn't sell it.

The Northern Gateway pipeline has absolutely nothing to do with suppling energy to Canadians or providing gas for our cars and boats! It is about shipping our raw (diluted) bitumen resources from the Tar Sands to China.

This is the defining issue for this generation of BC residents. The Alberta and foreign company shareholders want to make millions at the expense of 800 of our rivers, streams and watersheds and our entire coast. They want to risk all of our coastal fisheries and all of the fishing, tourism, and First Nations economies and wild life that depend on it, so they can make a profit. A tanker or pipeline disaster in inevitable, because of human fallibility. The Exon Valdez, the Gulf spill, the Kalamazoo river (Enbridge!!) and our own Queen of the North were all examples of human failures and mistakes! Enbridge was branded as "Keystone Cops" in their handling of Kalamazoo rupture by US official investigations.

Anyone who cares for BC must vote on Tuesday in such a way as to ensure this monstrous pipeline is NEVER built.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Northern Gateway pipeline has absolutely nothing to do with suppling energy to Canadians or providing gas for our cars and boats! It is about shipping our raw (diluted) bitumen resources from the Tar Sands to China.

This is the defining issue for this generation of BC residents. The Alberta and foreign company shareholders want to make millions at the expense of 800 of our rivers, streams and watersheds and our entire coast. They want to risk all of our coastal fisheries and all of the fishing, tourism, and First Nations economies and wild life that depend on it, so they can make a profit. A tanker or pipeline disaster in inevitable, because of human fallibility. The Exon Valdez, the Gulf spill, the Kalamazoo river (Enbridge!!) and our own Queen of the North were all examples of human failures and mistakes! Enbridge was branded as "Keystone Cops" in their handling of Kalamazoo rupture by US official investigations.

Anyone who cares for BC must vote on Tuesday in such a way as to ensure this monstrous pipeline is NEVER built.

You're right I got off track but sadly I don't think there's such thing as a vote that will accomplish what we want. Green definitely won't they're pretty much a wasted vote.
 
This from the Dogwood Initiative (anti-tanker lobby group) a few days ago. The fight to preserve our coast, tourism and fisheries continues, notwithstanding the election results. (There were several anti-pipeline MLA's elected anyway, as it says at the bottom).
Anyone who wants to do a bit more to defeat the Northern Gateway pipeline can sign up with Dogwood:-

"
Hi,

By now, you’ve no doubt heard the news about the Liberals’ surprise victory in the B.C. election.

Enbridge and Kinder Morgan will be heaving a sigh of relief today. However, they have no basis to feel confident. While a provincial government that is outright opposed to these oil tanker and pipeline proposals would have been helpful in killing them, that has only ever been one part of the massive, grassroots strategy to protect our coast, rivers and communities.

These projects will be stopped by the people of British Columbia linked arm-in-arm with First Nations communities. It will be done through continued political organizing, legal action and the enforcement of indigenous legal bans on oilsands tankers and pipelines. A shortcut to victory was blocked last evening, so we’ll just have to get back on the main road.

We can imagine how many of you might be feeling right now. Perhaps you’re anxious, disappointed or outright angry. You’re not alone. We need you to turn those feelings into a new sense of determination.

There is no single action or quick fix to give to you today. Instead, we need you to commit for the long-haul. Your mission: to hold the new government’s feet to the fire, starting with your newly elected MLA. We’ve called this journey Find Leaders.

Can we count you in?

A lot of factors influence the outcome of elections and there will no doubt be plenty of speculation in the next few days about what caused the collapse of the NDP.

Here’s what we know for sure: the majority of British Columbians oppose the expansion of oil tanker traffic on B.C.’s coast and want leaders who will stand up for our coast. Although the B.C. Liberals have not taken a clear position either way, not a single pro-tanker candidate was elected in yesterday’s election.

We also know that 16 days from now, the B.C. Liberal government has to file its final position with the panel reviewing Enbridge’s oil pipeline and tanker proposal. Given the Liberals recently said Enbridge is not meeting their five conditions, we are hopeful the next government will stand up for B.C. and say no to Enbridge. And we know if they don’t, citizens will rise up once again to force the government to take action. Will you hold the new government to account?

You ought to be proud of all you’ve done. For the past two years you’ve applied relentless pressure to provincial politicians. You organized yourselves block by block. You bought up radio ads and sponsored volunteers, taking ownership of this campaign ten and twenty dollars at a time.

Two years ago most people didn’t believe the battle for B.C.’s coast would be a provincial election issue — and yet it turned out to be a major one.

As we move on to the next step in this journey, we know British Columbians are more dedicated than ever to protect our coast. Together, against all odds, we will outfight the richest industry in the world. Please commit for the long-haul today.

For our coast,

No Tankers Election Team

P.S. Many of your friends and family are likely disappointed with the election results and concerned about the future of our coast. Make us stronger by sharing the No Tankers petition with them today.

P.P.S. In happy news, No Tankers champions Rob Fleming, Jennifer Rice, Andrew Weaver, George Heyman, Gary Holman, Robin Austin and David Eby were elected yesterday.

https://www.gifttool.com/donations/Donate?ID=88&AID=2704
"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-rejects-northern-gateway-project-over-environmental-concerns-1.1305479

British Columbia has formally rejected the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, saying the project has not been able to address environmental concerns.

Read more: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-rejects-no...nvironmental-concerns-1.1305479#ixzz2UtV7xQu2

Saw that just now as well TC. It is a step in the right direction, but it's not over yet.
The price of the freedom of our waterways and coast from a monumental bitumen flavoured disaster is eternal vigilance!
 
http://westcoastnativenews.com/harper-blocks-interview-with-scientist-on-oilsands/

Harper Blocks Interview With Scientist On Oilsands

derrick on May 31st, 2013 10:20 pm - No Comment Yet




The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has declined an interview request with a scientist to discuss the environmental impacts of oilsands development because it objected to a recent Postmedia News report, a federal government spokesman wrote in an email.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada is one of seven federal departments and agencies under investigation by Parliament’s Information Commissioner, Suzanne Legault, over allegations that the government is “muzzling” and restricting access to government scientists.

The Postmedia News report, published on Tuesday, quoted an internal memorandum that said the department had “recently” discovered that in-situ oilsands projects could disturb water sources and harm fish habitat.

Postmedia News also reported in the story that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government introduced changes to environmental laws – one year after receiving the memo – that would allow it to exclude some oilsands projects from reviews.

“We are declining your interview request in light of the fact your article is incorrect in suggesting that the memo was in relation to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 and Fisheries Act amendments,” wrote Frank Stanek, manager of media relations from the department in an email to Postmedia News on Wednesday evening.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has published the list of proposed projects that would be subject to an automatic federal environmental review, and it has confirmed that in-situ oilsands projects, which require the injection of high-pressure steam, deep underground to extract heavy oil, were not on this list.

Another media outlet, iPolitics, also reported in the past week that in-situ oilsands projects were excluded from the list and that an industry lobby group, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, had been lobbying the agency in recent months, according to a federal registry. It is not unusual for industry associations to lobby federal departments and agencies to defend their interests on matters of public policy.

The Postmedia report also included comments from the fisheries department saying that these types of projects did not require federal assessments in the past and that it didn’t anticipate they would require reviews under the amended federal environmental laws.

The report also quoted the agency explaining that the environment minister could still require an environmental assessment because of the “potential for adverse environmental effects on matters of federal jurisdiction or if there are public concerns about those effects.”

In his email from Wednesday evening, Stanek repeated that the memo predated the changes to environmental laws, as Postmedia News had reported.

He also said that the department had not eliminated reviews in higher risk areas.

“The memo clearly states that we would continue to work with Departments, Provinces, proponents and others to assess any of these projects where there may be potential for higher risk to fisheries habitat,” Stanek wrote.

The department also sent out letters to various newspapers in the Postmedia Network with similar comments, attributed to David Balfour, a senior assistant deputy minister.

Erin Filliter, a spokeswoman for federal Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield, later wrote on Twitter that the letter was “correcting” the story on environmental assessments.



Postmedia News emailed a series of questions to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans about its statement on Thursday morning:

- Does your department or its minister’s office believe that scientists should only give interviews to journalists that write stories in a certain way?

- Are scientists in the department allowed to speak freely about their research on impacts of in-situ oilsands projects on water and fish habitat?

- What makes the department uncomfortable about a story that compares a memo about impacts on fish habitat to a subsequent decision by the government to change environmental laws?

- In what way does the department believe the memo was not related to the changes to environmental laws?

- What is the difference between continuing to work with departments, provinces, proponents and others to assess projects versus putting in-situ oilsands development on a project list that requires reviews?

The department said Friday that it was planning to respond to these questions later in the day.

The memo, released through access to information legislation, also included a background document, dated March 30, 2011, that challenged statements, proposed by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, “based on the advice from experts in Alberta and Natural Resources Canada” that there was “little possibility” of in-situ operations disrupting fish habitat.

The document said this statement should be “deleted” since it did not accurately reflect the concerns of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

A spokesman from Natural Resources Canada told Postmedia News it was unable to locate the official who provided the advice from 2011, that downplayed the impacts of in-situ oilsands projects.

“Since the time of your request yesterday, we have been unable to confirm which specific departmental official would have been consulted,” wrote Natural Resources Canada spokesman Paul Duchesne in an email on Thursday. “Please bear in mind that the briefing note you reference was produced two years ago.”
 
http://westcoastnativenews.com/harp...jects-following-warnings-of-water-disruption/

Harper government eliminated reviews for oilsands projects following warnings of water disruption

derrick on May 29th, 2013 6:46 am - 2 Comments







OTTAWA — The federal government removed some oilsands projects from a list of those requiring environmental screenings, after being told in an internal memorandum that this form of industrial development could disturb water sources and harm fish habitat.

The memo to the deputy minister of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, dated May 5, 2011, came a year before Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government introduced hundreds of pages of changes to Canada’s environmental laws, which will allow the government to exclude some oilsands projects from reviews.


In total, the changes eliminated about 3,000 federal environmental assessments, including hundreds of evaluations of projects involving fossil fuels and pipeline development, once the laws were adopted in July 2012. Ministers in Harper’s government said this would reduce unnecessary delays and focus federal resources on investigating projects with the greatest potential impacts on the environment.

Expansion of conventional oilsands mines, which use large amounts of water and energy to extract the heavy oil, still require federal assessments even under changes proposed by the federal government.

The internal memorandum suggested that some in-situ oilsands projects, involving the injection of steam deep underground to extract heavy oil from Alberta’s natural bitumen deposits, also required reviews and authorizations because of threats to the water supply and fish habitat.

The memo said the department was previously monitoring the impact of new road construction at the sites on fish habitat, but had “recently” noticed the additional threats to water from in-situ projects. This form of oilsands development, expected to be the main source of industry expansion in the future, is not on a new proposed list of projects requiring federal environmental evaluations.

“Steam injection operations have the potential to cause surface upheaval and groundwater extraction operations may impact groundwater-surface water interactions,” said the memo, signed by David Balfour, a senior assistant deputy minister, and accepted by Claire Dansereau, the deputy minister. “This could result in reductions in surface water flows in watercourses, leading to potential impacts on fish habitat.”

The Fisheries Act previously allowed for the minister to issue an authorization, allowing industrial developers to disrupt fish habitat, provided that they compensate with other measures to protect ecosystems.

The new laws adopted in July, removed a requirement for some authorizations, shifting the focus instead to the protection of commercial, recreational or aboriginal fisheries.



The memo, obtained using access to information legislation, also included a background document, dated March 30, 2011, that challenged statements, proposed by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and “based on the advice from experts in Alberta and Natural Resources Canada” that there was “little possibility” of in-situ oilsands operations disrupting fish habitat.

“This statement should be deleted from the document since it is not an accurate reflection of (the Department of Fisheries and Ocean’s) position with respect to our regulatory review of in-situ projects,” said a comment inserted by the department. “DFO anticipates that in some higher risk areas the issuance of a Fisheries Act authorization may be necessary for impacts to fish habitat associated with groundwater disturbance activity as a result of in-situ operations.”


Keith Stewart, a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace Canada who obtained the memo, said the document suggests the federal government is not meeting its constitutional responsibilities to protect the rights and way of life of First Nations.

“It looks to me like the government ignored the advice of its scientists,” Stewart said. “It’s an issue that First Nations have been raising for a long time, and I’ve never seen it confirmed by the federal government as a problem, before now.”

When asked for comment, Greg Stringham, the vice-president of an industry lobby group — the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers — emailed Postmedia News a statement saying that environmental standards were not compromised by recent federal reforms, noting that in-situ projects were subject to “rigorous” provincial reviews in Alberta.

Alberta’s Environment Department emailed a similar statement stating that projects were only approved after ensuring they were using the best technology and meeting strict standards to reduce impacts.

“We know that industrial development has impacts,” wrote spokesman Trevor Gemmell. “That is why all industrial activities are subject to environmental regulations in Alberta, and large projects require a stringent environmental assessment.”

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Natural Resources Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans were not immediately able to answer questions from Postmedia News about the memo.

Environment Canada told Postmedia News it was not the lead department on the issue.

source
 
shttp://www.pembina.org/pub/2455#.UcN2BK9DZwA.twitter



Pembina has quantified a number of metrics of oilsands production on a per-barrel basis, including land disturbance, air emissions, water use, greenhouse gas emissions, and tailings production.

This provides a comprehensive assessment of current and potential future impacts based on approved projects as well as growth projections.

Download the backgrounder.
 
Pipeline safety is of major concern and the big oil knows it. That's why they and the government spend millions on advertizing. Read this link to see what the insiders are saying about the pipelines...... Many years ago I use to be an inspector on pipelines and in the pipe mills. My experience from the pipeline industry tells me to be very concerned with any tar sands pipeline in BC......

http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/411\ENEV/50221-E.HTM

GLG
 
Don't just focus just on oil pipelines, there is a lot going on in BC with natural gas in BC and if you have read about our spill in Zama Alberta you will find proof that natural gas is not a clean energy.
 
Back
Top