Enbridge Spills it Out Again
cougar @ Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:10 pm
andyt andyt:
If we are going to say, no that's it, this but no more, we'd better either find some other way to bring money into the country or all get used to having less of it.
They had found all kinds of ways of bringing money into Canada - foreign students, rich immigrants, tourism and more, but those still depend on the Canadian foreign and environmental policies.
Exporting just natural resources means Canada is now a developing country.
A developed country uses its knowledge and technology to convert raw materials into quality products and sell them to the world.
However those high tech jobs and manufacturing businesses ended up in Asia due to the same people, now proposing the pipelines. They should have figured out back then what the impact of outsourcing business would have on Canada, and the long term prospects. They should have known the country would become dependent on Asia.
Now it may be China pulling the strings, while you and me think we control something. They may have told Harper - "No oil, no Chinese products shipped to Canada." What do you do then? Tell the Chinese about the capabilities of your new fighter jets?
Gunnair @ Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:15 pm
cougar cougar:
andyt andyt:
If we are going to say, no that's it, this but no more, we'd better either find some other way to bring money into the country or all get used to having less of it.
They had found all kinds of ways of bringing money into Canada - foreign students, rich immigrants, tourism and more, but those still depend on the Canadian foreign and environmental policies.
Exporting just natural resources means Canada is now a developing country.
A developed country uses its knowledge and technology to convert raw materials into quality products and sell them to the world.
However those high tech jobs and manufacturing businesses ended up in Asia due to the same people, now proposing the pipelines. They should have figured out back then what the impact of outsourcing business would have on Canada, and the long term prospects. They should have known the country would become dependent on Asia.
Now it may be China pulling the strings, while you and me think we control something. They may have told Harper - "No oil, no Chinese products shipped to Canada." What do you do then? Tell the Chinese about the capabilities of your new fighter jets?
I'd ask for a list of justifications for all the points of this argument but.... why bother.
andyt @ Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:28 pm
Gunnair Gunnair:
If other people are OK with the risk/reward then of course it's okay to say they may have it while we do not.
I'm not okay with it, but if they run a pipeline to Hudson's Bay and everyone is happy with the benefits, then so be it.
While obviously I'm most attached to BC, I see myself as a Canadian. That means I care about what happens in the rest of Canada, and I'm not willing to say not here but there is OK. Of course it also means I see Alberta oil as Canadian, which gets the Albertans all riles up. All resources should in some way be seen as Canadian, and we should all care about how they are used. I guess our form of federalism has worked reasonably well, but I always think we can do better. We should have the same medicare in each province and access to it no matter where we go. Education should have some sort of standardization, even if it's run locally. And so on. I'm Canadian before I'm a BC'r, even if I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.
Gunnair @ Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:58 am
andyt andyt:
Gunnair Gunnair:
If other people are OK with the risk/reward then of course it's okay to say they may have it while we do not.
I'm not okay with it, but if they run a pipeline to Hudson's Bay and everyone is happy with the benefits, then so be it.
While obviously I'm most attached to BC, I see myself as a Canadian. That means I care about what happens in the rest of Canada, and I'm not willing to say not here but there is OK. Of course it also means I see Alberta oil as Canadian, which gets the Albertans all riles up. All resources should in some way be seen as Canadian, and we should all care about how they are used. I guess our form of federalism has worked reasonably well, but I always think we can do better. We should have the same medicare in each province and access to it no matter where we go. Education should have some sort of standardization, even if it's run locally. And so on. I'm Canadian before I'm a BC'r, even if I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.
I guess you missed my point of them 'wanting' the pipeline and it's 'benefits'.
andyt @ Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:37 am
My point was that I don't see it as them vs us. I care about how a pipeline will work to Hudson's Bay almost as much as I do about one thru BC. And I don't buy into the we don't want it but let those poor suckers have it idea. We should be focusing more on what's good for Canada over all instead of always regionally. Otherwise, what exactly is the point of having Canada in the first place?
bootlegga @ Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:56 am
Gunnair Gunnair:
andyt andyt:
Yes. But any pipeline would do that, pretty well anywhere. We already have pipelines that do that in BC, bringing oil down to Vancouver. http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/map-pipeline/ What's so different about Gateway in that respect?
300,000 BPD for the existing pipeline
500,000 BPD through the new pipeline into a terminal that requires a transit through the Douglas Channel to open ocean on the North Coast.
Do the math and then consider the risks the just to the coast (let alone the rest of northern BC) with respect to the distances and conditions our scant resources will have to answer a spill.
No thanks.
I understand the concern about the North Coast, and fully agree that Gateway should end at PR instead of Kitimat. Sending tankers down a fairly narrow channel is just asking for another Exxon Valdez incident.
But this whole oil spill issue on the North Coast (in general and not in the Douglas Channel) is a phoney one IMHO. US tankers already transit the area going to and from Alaska everyday. To my knowledge, there hasn't yet been a major spill in all those thousands of tanker trips.
BTW, Kinder Morgan may run 300,000 BPD through it right now, but after they finish their upgrade, it's going to more than double to 750,000 BPD.
andyt @ Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:01 am
bootlegga bootlegga:
BTW, Kinder Morgan may run 300,000 BPD through it right now, but after they finish their upgrade, it's going to more than double to 750,000 BPD.
Are you talking about the twinning proposal? That's not been approved yet anymore than Gateway. It has the advantage of already going over ground that has a pipeline on it, but would result in a huge uptick of tanker traffic out of Vancouver. That would also result in some blowback. To me this proposal actually makes sense tho. I think Gateway is probably dead in the water because of Native opposition - they could tie it up in the courts for the foreseeable future, and if that doesn't work disrupt the building itself. We know how skittish govts are about removing native protesters.
bootlegga @ Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:42 am
andyt andyt:
bootlegga bootlegga:
BTW, Kinder Morgan may run 300,000 BPD through it right now, but after they finish their upgrade, it's going to more than double to 750,000 BPD.
Are you talking about the twinning proposal? That's not been approved yet anymore than Gateway. It has the advantage of already going over ground that has a pipeline on it, but would result in a huge uptick of tanker traffic out of Vancouver. That would also result in some blowback. To me this proposal actually makes sense tho. I think Gateway is probably dead in the water because of Native opposition - they could tie it up in the courts for the foreseeable future, and if that doesn't work disrupt the building itself. We know how skittish govts are about removing native protesters.
It hasn't been formally approved, but I have little doubt it will be. Given that it follows an established route and doesn't have a history of major spills, I don't see how it can't be approved.
I also have no doubt that Gateway (or something like it) will be built too - it's just a question of where and how much money it will take to get the deal done.
Zipperfish @ Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:47 am
andyt andyt:
My point was that I don't see it as them vs us. I care about how a pipeline will work to Hudson's Bay almost as much as I do about one thru BC. And I don't buy into the we don't want it but let those poor suckers have it idea. We should be focusing more on what's good for Canada over all instead of always regionally. Otherwise, what exactly is the point of having Canada in the first place?
Constitutionally, the oil belongs to Alberta, not Canada. Not that Canada doesn't have a stake, but Alberatns claiming that it is there oil aren't wrong.
I'm concerned about the apathy displayed by the government and even moreso by the people of Canada. I blame the overbearing histrionics of the green movement as much as I blame the money-grubbers seeking to privatize profit and socialize risk.
We seem to have accepted theInverse Tinkerbell Theory (TM) of global warming: "If we don't believe it, it's not real."
andyt @ Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:50 am
It's their oil. It's time we took another look at that. I don't want to take away their oil so much as I want us to all be Canadians first. And, the Albertans are finding out, it's their oil, but there are limits to what they can do. Especially if the country elects the NDP, because most of the country doesn't feel the love from Alberta's oil. It's in Alberta's own interests to see themselves more part of the whole, just as Warren Buffet points out it's in the 1 percenter's own interest to do the same - or possibly wind up losing more if they keep trying to take more.
cougar @ Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:09 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Constitutionally, the oil belongs to Alberta, not Canada.
This illustrates how stupid those who created the constitution were.
Let's assume Alberta decides to fairly distribute all oil sale proceeds among its population, then there is nothing stopping any Canadian from going to Alberta and becoming a resident. You do not need a visa or any approval for that.
Andyt has a good point, if no province around Alberta wants to accept pipelines or the hazard of transporting oil, Albertan's will have to leave their oil where it is.
Gunnair @ Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:29 pm
bootlegga bootlegga:
Gunnair Gunnair:
andyt andyt:
Yes. But any pipeline would do that, pretty well anywhere. We already have pipelines that do that in BC, bringing oil down to Vancouver. http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/map-pipeline/ What's so different about Gateway in that respect?
300,000 BPD for the existing pipeline
500,000 BPD through the new pipeline into a terminal that requires a transit through the Douglas Channel to open ocean on the North Coast.
Do the math and then consider the risks the just to the coast (let alone the rest of northern BC) with respect to the distances and conditions our scant resources will have to answer a spill.
No thanks.
I understand the concern about the North Coast, and fully agree that Gateway should end at PR instead of Kitimat. Sending tankers down a fairly narrow channel is just asking for another Exxon Valdez incident.
But this whole oil spill issue on the North Coast (in general and not in the Douglas Channel) is a phoney one IMHO. US tankers already transit the area going to and from Alaska everyday. To my knowledge, there hasn't yet been a major spill in all those thousands of tanker trips.
BTW, Kinder Morgan may run 300,000 BPD through it right now, but after they finish their upgrade, it's going to more than double to 750,000 BPD.
They run the tankers offshore and not in the narrow channels needed for Kitimat and to a lesser extent, Rupert - two very different things.
herbie @ Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:37 pm
$1:
But this whole oil spill issue on the North Coast (in general and not in the Douglas Channel) is a phoney one IMHO. US tankers already transit the area going to and from Alaska everyday. To my knowledge, there hasn't yet been a major spill in all those thousands of tanker trips.
Look at a map. Tankers from Alaska to Cherry Point sail offshore. That means AROUND Vancouver Island. They do not go through the Inside Passage, Douglas Channel or any other narrow waterway.
And the proponents should realize the people of BC are not so fucking stupid and desperate they've already completely forgotten we lost a ferry right at the end of that channel.
Gunnair @ Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:44 pm
herbie herbie:
$1:
But this whole oil spill issue on the North Coast (in general and not in the Douglas Channel) is a phoney one IMHO. US tankers already transit the area going to and from Alaska everyday. To my knowledge, there hasn't yet been a major spill in all those thousands of tanker trips.
Look at a map. Tankers from Alaska to Cherry Point sail offshore. That means AROUND Vancouver Island. They do not go through the Inside Passage, Douglas Channel or any other narrow waterway.
And the proponents should realize the people of BC are not so fucking stupid and desperate they've already completely forgotten we lost a ferry right at the end of that channel.
Actually, it was at the end of Grenville Channel, another equally hazardous channel.
Zipperfish @ Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:40 am
andyt andyt:
It's their oil. It's time we took another look at that. I don't want to take away their oil so much as I want us to all be Canadians first. And, the Albertans are finding out, it's their oil, but there are limits to what they can do. Especially if the country elects the NDP, because most of the country doesn't feel the love from Alberta's oil. It's in Alberta's own interests to see themselves more part of the whole, just as Warren Buffet points out it's in the 1 percenter's own interest to do the same - or possibly wind up losing more if they keep trying to take more.
Yup. Alberat are getting as insufferable as Torontonians. Rolling in it, yet constantly complaning about how hard done by they are.
