You’re so, what’s that word? Funny? No, that’s not it…
The CanaDoper Café (2012 edition of The great, ongoing Canadian current events and politics thread.)
I was hoping for some mud wrestling pictures. Christy Clark is trying to score points before the provincial election next year. Much ado about nothing.
You think it’s just posturing, and the pipeline will be built as planned?
Yep.
ETA: From what I hear I don’t think B.C. has a case. The pipeline will be built.
I’m in agreement, and I’m pretty sure you are too, along with level-headed Canadians.
The old dam at the provincial park is kind of neat in a decrepit kind of way and if you have wheels the trip out to Stienbach’s Mennonite museum is worth the perogies alone. I used to live in Beausejour many years ago and if you like outdoors there’s lots of cool stuff to see.
Thank you.
I’ve been avoiding posting about politics for the last while because I sense that our viewpoints are simply entrenched, and all we really do is irritate one another.
However, in light of Enbridge’s track record on the number of pipeline spills and the damning report on their incompetence on handling the Kalamazoo spill, I am adamantly opposed to the Northern Gateway project. In fact, I’m baffled that anybody thinks that the benefit outweighs the risk of environmental damage.
Really? Why? I have no doubt that Christy Clark is politically posturing but there are some salient points that do have to be ironed out before you start shucking large amounts of bitumen through some of the most remote wilderness in Southern Canada (Anything below the 60th).
a) Look at Enbridge’s response to the last few pipeline spills which were in fairly accessible areas and still took a lot of time and a lot of manpower, that is when Enbridge finally noticed.
b) Bitumen is a real pain to clean up compared to crude oil…Link
c) Pr. Redford is moaning about lost revenue, but let’s face it, the longest link of the pipeline is in BC, and it won’t be coming out of Alberta’s coffers when the pipeline leaks, and that is a certainty, it will leak at some point.
I still question why we aren’t shipping finished product out to the rest of the world. Two refineries could be built in Alberta, keep the money and ship the finished products out to market. Oh right, the multinationals that actually own the oil patch have a vested interest in keeping us raw material providers and selling the goods at a gross profit.
I’m not some niave granola cruncher and am pretty pragmatic, but at some point we have to protect Canada, and her best interests. Setting up this pipeline should not be done lightly, and at the expense of everything else. The point I never seem to see brought up is that the oil isn’t going anywhere, demand isn’t decreasing, and extraction methods continue to become more efficient, so why are we in such a hurry to blast a hole through the landscape and give away our best at fire sale prices? Maybe Hugo Chavez is on to something…at least as far a s oil development goes.
I hear ya’ about our views being entrenched. I’m just glad we can discuss different viewpoints rationally here and respect the differences.
I certainly see your environmental concerns, but I don’t share them. Not that I don’t care for the environment, but with the double-walled technology of today the risk is extremely low. The Kalamazoo (that’s even fun to type) pipe was an older single-walled pipe.
Maybe I’m just naive.
Why was the pipe old rather than replaced in a timely manner?
Once the leak began and was noticed, why was the leak ignored for so long?
I wouldn’t trust that company with a garden hose.
I’d like to see TransCanada chase Enbridgeout of the country, given Enbridge’s track record.
That being said, I’ll be interested to see how well TransCanada handles its aging TransCanada II natural gas pipeline, which is having difficulty with some of its inspections (although TransCanada I is doing fine). Let’s see if TransCanada can handle aging pipes better than Enbridge.
That’s what TransCanada and Irving hope to do.
There is a big difference in shipping LNG in a pipeline vice bitumen or even heavy crude. I think you’re right Leaffan, in that the pipeline will go through and the niave comment was more a general shot at the type of people that bemoan the state of the environment on their Mac Air, having driven their Prius to the local Starbucks four blocks away. I know I can say I’ve seen (and heard) them.
What it always comes down to is the age old tug of war between corporate profit margins and accountability, which is and should be the government’s responsibility. Self regulatory bodies tend to be self interested; Human Nature. Business will do what it can get away with, and what terrifies me is a situation where Government hands corporate citizens carte blanche, because they will run with it.
Will it mean the end of BC as some of the most beautiful country on Earth if the pipeline goes through? Probably not. That doesn’t mean we should allow a company to escape continued due diligence and risk analysis before we jump on a project of this scope without considering what happens when the worst inevitably occurs.
I’ve wondered these things, too. Lately, I’ve also been wondering why we’re selling our natural resource companies to the Chinese, too.
I would much rather see that bitumen refined in Canada because I have a greater faith in our ability to monitor and minimize the pollution created. If China refines that stuff, we’re all going to be breathing it in about five years. If Canada doesn’t refine it, I had less of a problem with the US than I do with China. (And I respect that it is their choice whether or not to run a pipeline shipping diluted bitumen over the Oglala aquifer. It’s just, if they thought that was too risky, what about going through the mountains through the headwaters of the Fraser/Nechako river systems?)
Also, if we are the ones to refine the bitumen, we can encourage R & D into green technology, encourage innovation and secure patents that will be useful and profitable as the world moves away from petroleum as fuel. There will be a market for petroleum based plastics for quite some time to come, but its days as fuel are numbered.
I just feel that there is a better course of action than the Northern Gateway pipeline.
And we haven’t even begun to discuss getting a tanker in and out of Kitimat. On that issue, I strongly suspect someone is going to come along and insist the pipeline be built to Prince Rupert instead. Yes, it adds overland miles, but it is safer than getting through the inlet. (Still too risky for the benefit, in my opinion.)
It isn’t about corporate profits, it is about what the taxes and royalties governments collect.
Nexen had one good thing working for them. They had Yemen where they produced a bunch of oil cheaply. That paid for a number of other projects, notably its oil sands development. They worked with another company to develop a more efficient process to extract the oil. They have never produced close to their expectations. So, multiple billions were spent (wasted) there, when they could have spent it on other areas like Yemen, where they had experience and the teams to do so. But they frittered that away instead of solidifying their position to the point where they are now.
IMHO, it was when the Finance types took over that the company was doomed.
Pipelines are the safest form of transportation. But they do corrode and they can be damaged. It takes regular maintenance and continuous monitoring. If there is a break the oil between the two valve stations has the potential to drain onto the ground (or lake or river, or whatever else is near). Normally, the cleanup is pretty much a dig up the dirt exercise.
I think a look at theexistingoil and gas pipelines would be beneficial. One more pipeline is an environmental disaster waiting to happen?
Fuck that.
Yes, look at that map. How much oil and gas is moved through them daily with minimal incidents?
Enbridge hasn’t had an oil spillof Canadian oil from a major pipeline since, well, yesterday (Lakehead 14 in Wisconsin). http://www.enbridge.com/MediaCentre/News.aspx?yearTab=en2012&id=1646238
317,600 barrels of oil move through that pipeline daily. Installed in 1998. Probably moving oil since 1999. About 1.5 billion barrels of oil or about 1500 loads on a good sized ocean tanker (not usable in this case). Or about** 6,651,869** fuel Trucks (and I used the big trucks for this calculation). That’s about 1481 trucks a day over 1000’s of kilometers and just for one pipeline. So, you’d rather see 1000’s of trucks replace, what in comparison, is a safe pipeline? (Please, no fantasy world talk about how we can be one with nature and don’t need oil or fuel). I guess we could look forward to headlines like this: 95 Dead in Fuel Tanker spill rather than Enbridge having to clean up a mess.