Previous  1  2  3  4

I don't think so. Cleaning up the Gulf spill is a cheap cakewalk compared to a North Coast spill and we'll have an NDP government in May.

Highly doubt it'll happen.

   

BC already has the sweetest pot.

   

Maybe that'll mellow them out.

"Pipeline? Pass that over here, man."

   

I can totally agree you on the cost differences and damages from a Gulf to BC-Alaska spill. I have studied the USCG Spill and cost reports and the cost for clean up and not to mention the damage of after is way higher in ya neck of the sea and isles. I also remember when I was home in Yellowknife a debate re guarding drilling in the Arctic Ocean the Cost for a spill,ouch/croak shall we say. Now what is the NDP stance pipeline wise? Or are they the Canuk Enviro wacko party with leanings towards those criminal terrorist Sea Shepard's.

   

The NDP is even more opposed than the Libs - the Libs are only opposed because they want to be in tune with public opinion, the NDP is more opposed because of their principles.

Me, I'm all for the pipeline and tankers. Just make sure that the companies involved have sufficient funds on hand to take care of any spill, of any size. Say 50 billion at least, in a bond. And make sure they use the best technology - ie double walled pipeline and double walled tankers. Then make them route it to Prince Rupert - much safer. After that, no problem.

There's also the proposal to build a refinery at Kitimat and export refined products. Certainly sounds interesting.

   

Well if that's all.... Enbridge will be along any time.

   

IF they don't like the playing field they can always take their ball and shove it up their ass.

   

I've asked this before and I'm not sure anybody answered.

Wouldn't it be possible to have an offshore platform to load these tankers? Yes, I know it would involve extending the pipeline underwater to the platform but it would solve the tricky navigation problems.

   

Ask BP how off shore platforms work.

Seriously, I truly doubt it. Making it offshore exposes it to wind and weather, which is only just bearable in the summer months.

   

There's a difference between a loading platform and a drilling platform.
I'm no expert, but I'm sure some of them have looked into it.

I worked one summer on a loading platform. They were making changes that involved a lot of soldering. For safety, that required someone in full fire retardant suit with a fire extinguisher, ready just in case. That was me. I also had to wear a CO2 inflatable vest, also just in case.

   

Well, again, anything offshore is exposed to wind and weather. Unlikely as hell.

   

A tantrum??? Oh please, you got called on being a selective reader and now you're just trying to deflect it instead of manning up to it. You also seem to have a strange definition of a broad brush.
So, because I mentioned a particular group of eco-nuts that were only looking at the small picture, that's using a broad brush. If I recall, it was you that brought up the Northern Gateway when I was CLEARLY talking about those protesting Keystone XL. Never mind the fact that I had previously explained my opposition to the Northern Gateway and why. If I recall correctly, you and I were the only ones arguing in support of the fact that the waters the supertankers would have to ply are some of the most dangerous waters in the world for ships in general.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of you having a good pout.

   

Irrespective of whether you were talking about Keystone or NG, you opted for the broad when you chose to fling around the eco-nut epithet for those protesting Keystone. Not wanting a pipeline is hardly deserving of the title and as you say yourself, you oppose NG - which some would say puts you clearly in your 'eco-nut' category for those who want NG to go through.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4