getting NG past all those FN would have been next to impossible yeah some bands were on board but not the bands that count some bands were partialy on board but whole divide and conquer thing does not appear to work with FN
Next take the very worst place on the whole north coast to put an LNG terminal which would be right at the mouth of the Skeena and call it Petronnas. This project will probably die due to low world prices if it doesnt get killed due to no social license from the FN
I don't necessarily see anything wrong with that. Of course she is pro oil and gas.
I am probably neutral on pipelines. I see their benefit, I see their potential risk and I understand the point of view that using oil and gas is leading to climate change. However, north america isn't doing a very good job moving from oil and neither are developing countries. Both the private user and government should make efforts to reduce their consumption and it is arguably easier for the government to lead.
However, many of the people who I know are anti pipeline ride their bikes to work and try to reduce consumption, which I applaud. But then they have no trouble driving 300 km round trip to skin in the Duffey, or make trips into the interior, or to fly. I am not judging as I also fall into this category and understand that I use a fair amount of oil even though I don't drive to work.
I am glad they approved KM vs NG. If you are going to approve one, this is by far the better option. Vancouver isn't pristine compared to the north coast and there are a heck of a lot of people here to report a spill.
We're on the same page regarding KM vs. NG.
However, site C dam is a no-go in my books. But it's ok, she lives 7kms away so i'll trust her on that. Al sources she quotes are pro-oil and gas sources so there's that other tidbit about her feeling good about delivering facts.
I don't necessarily see anything wrong with that. Of course she is pro oil and gas.
I am probably neutral on pipelines. I see their benefit, I see their potential risk and I understand the point of view that using oil and gas is leading to climate change. However, north america isn't doing a very good job moving from oil and neither are developing countries. Both the private user and government should make efforts to reduce their consumption and it is arguably easier for the government to lead.
However, many of the people who I know are anti pipeline ride their bikes to work and try to reduce consumption, which I applaud. But then they have no trouble driving 300 km round trip to skin in the Duffey, or make trips into the interior, or to fly. I am not judging as I also fall into this category and understand that I use a fair amount of oil even though I don't drive to work.
I am glad they approved KM vs NG. If you are going to approve one, this is by far the better option. Vancouver isn't pristine compared to the north coast and there are a heck of a lot of people here to report a spill.
I also have these feelings
I'm fine with the privatization of resource extraction if the entities are willing to cover the full cost if they fuck up.
To date, these losses have always been socialized, and will continue to do so as long as we're always there to clean up.
Moral hazards.
I also have these feelings
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
I'm fine with the privatization of resource extraction if the entities are willing to cover the full cost if they fuck up.
To date, these loses have always been socialized, and will continue to do so as long as we're always there to clean up.
Moral hazards.
yup, true.
Forum jump:
