BC lays out 5 "conditions for approval" of Northern Gateway

So the immediate counter to that should be - well, it's been great talking with you, proposal rejected.

We're putting up the risk, there needs to be some significant reward for that. But it's Christy Clark, so I don't expect any leadership on the issue.

to be fair, I think the majority of BC'ers are still against it even with increased financial compensation….fence sitters looking for some benefits though really aren't getting it with that kind of rejection from Alberta. You're totally right though, that should be the BC response, but CC is a waste of space and only trying to figure out how she can win the election next year, which is looking very very unlikely at this point.

looks like Alberta is seeing to one of the five requirements not happening….apparently more revenues to BC is "not in the national interest" according to Redford. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/07/24/bc-alberta-gateway-pipeline.html

"The Alberta premier said the additional safety measures proposed by Enbridge last week should quell any concerns about the environmental risk." uhhhh, yeah, sure, I totally trust enbridge as their track record is so spotless. This pipeline is dead.

It should be the whole nation that benefits. Not just 10 people in charge.

Yeah, I work in that area with the Kitasoo/Xai'xais nation and the weather up there between November and March just sux and the thought of those super-super tankers trying to navigate those tight waters is incredibly scary. Many people in the area live off what the ocean provides, which could all be taken away in a blink of an eye.

exactly

A super tanker in the douglas channel is like putting a Chinook salmon in yer bathtub and telling me it ain't gona hit the sides there will be no way to clean up a spill and so when enbridge runs out of $ BC will be paying the $$$$$ for the cleanup NOT alberta

The waters up around the north coast/haida gwai are pretty crazy, the storms the tides that go funny ways, if they are going to run 225 tankers a year thats [HTML_REMOVED] one ship every 2 days, $$$$ will trump safety so they will have to go when they shouldn't sail … its only a matter of time

IME any 1st nation you meet up here in the PNW are pretty nice compared to some I have met in other parts of BC who have already beeen fucked over, I think its cuz they have something they have a way of life they have the ocean they have the salmon take it away and who will feed them … the BC government thats who ?

The coast of BC is not a farmers field in alberta out the morice you can get 1meter of snow in october after which it takes a week to dig out, there are places they want to run the line in the coast mtns where you can't get to during storms, choppers can't fly and any summer construction acess roads are covered in 20ft of snow

We all use oil, the question is not is pilelines are OK its wether THIS pipeline is a good idea, the only people who believe this line is a good idea are people who want to make $ and that would include local people … the guy with the car dealership , the guy with RE to sell

exactly

A super tanker in the douglas channel is like putting a Chinook salmon in yer bathtub and telling me it ain't gona hit the sides there will be no way to clean up a spill and so when enbridge runs out of $ BC will be paying the $$$$$ for the cleanup NOT alberta

The coast of BC is not a farmers field in alberta out the morice you can get 1meter of snow in october after which it takes a week to dig out, there are places they want to run the line in the coast mtns where you can't get to during storms, choppers can't fly and any summer construction acess roads are covered in 20ft of snow

We all use oil, the question is not is pilelines are OK its wether THIS pipeline is a good idea, the only people who believe this line is a good idea are people who want to make $ and that would include local people … the guy with the car dealership , the guy with RE to sell

Your fist point is dumb, you are making an analogy that just doesn't fit (pardon the pun).
Putting a VLCC (no ULCC are going up there that I've read about) with two tractor tugs
(large ones) as escort for each trip is like the bump in the middle of the Autopia ride
at Disneyland.

As for your second point…THAT is why you don't want the pipeline. Fuck the weather, how
about earthquakes, landslides and avalanches? How about the safety record for pipelines
from the company that wants to put the pipeline in? I recently read they had over 800
pipeline spill in 12 yrs?

Knowing what I know about ships and IMO regs, the VLCC's are not an issue.

Didn't bother reading the full thread but I would add. Build refinery in BC and no shipping of bitumen.

So today our government finally clarified their stance on the Northern Gateway project, after a lot of silence on the issue.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/07/23/pol-bc-pipeline-clark-gateway.html

One huge issue that heard reference to (I believe in a report by the ex-ICBC CEO), is that the bonding/insurance that "Northern Gateway Corp." has access to, is nowhere near the estimated costs of a spill. That and the fact that it's a shell corporation for Enbridge, basically absolving them of any major risk.

What say ye, NSMB?

A lot can be learned from the ExxonValdez disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill

The basics are that:

1) you can have great antiavoidance tech - but if your people fck up it won't help.
2) the risk to the environment increases in more remote areas as clean-up is compromised.
3) just like now promises were made with respect to collusion avoidance tech but no one was there to make sure the promises were kept.
4) when the sht hits the fan, don't rely on the oil co. to do the right thing without some serious litigation.

You don't see any problem running big tankers up the douglas channel and around north coast waters, so how long before they would be running ULCC tnakers ?

the marine industry fucked up in the valdez channel which is what 4 times as wide as the douglas channel??

I simply don't believe the oil is home free once it is in the ship

yeah there are the landslide issues, the govy geotechnical guy here in smithers retired last year so he could write whatever he wanted and has written a damning report so has the retired fish guy

The way I see it is:

Alberta's natural resource is oil
BC's natural resource is its Coast

BC's coast provides income from fishing, tourism, transportation, recreation and a gateway to Asia for trade and commerce. Our coast is meant to be here forever, and for future generations. Oil just isn't.

Oil just isn't.

Well, to be fair, it will be here for a hell of a long time if there's one big-ass spill!

Kn.

Well, to be fair, it will be here for a hell of a long time if there's one big-ass spill!

Kn.

Oil is meant to be sucked out of the ground and sold to the highest bidder ASAP.

looks like Alberta is seeing to one of the five requirements not happening….apparently more revenues to BC is "not in the national interest" according to Redford. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/07/24/bc-alberta-gateway-pipeline.html

"The Alberta premier said the additional safety measures proposed by Enbridge last week should quell any concerns about the environmental risk." uhhhh, yeah, sure, I totally trust enbridge as their track record is so spotless. This pipeline is dead.

Putting the pipeline aside, it bothers me that the BC Government thinks that they are entitled to royalty revenue. Hey, your pine beetles are fucking our forest industry here too. Give us some of your revenue to compensate for the loss. See why that doesn't work? It sets a new precedence in the confederation that shouldn't be set.

Putting the pipeline aside, it bothers me that the BC Government thinks that they are entitled to royalty revenue. Hey, your pine beetles are fucking our forest industry here too. Give us some of your revenue to compensate for the loss. See why that doesn't work? It sets a new precedence in the confederation that shouldn't be set.

A natural phenomenon affecting trees can't be equated to Alberta's desire to pipe their oil to the BC coast. Why should BC take so much of the risk, and so little of the reward?

can someone who knows about this stuff explain to the BB why we can't refine the shit ourselves , use what what we need , and sell the rest ?

inquiring minds want to know :lol:

can someone who knows about this stuff explain to the BB why we can't refine the shit ourselves , use what what we need , and sell the rest ?

inquiring minds want to know :lol:

The reasoning I've heard is that it is cheaper for the oil companies to ship it overseas and refine it there, so that's what they do. They're not concerned with contributing additionally to the Canadian economy, they want to get their oil, transport, and refine it for the lowest possible cost. Presumably refining in Canada is not the way to do that.

Whether subsidies could be used to change that could be debated, but that kindof goes against the idea of the province assigning a levee as part of building the pipelines. Maybe refining the product in-province could be the negotiated benefit to BC as a requirement to build the pipeline/ship from the BC coast.