Friday, September 7, 2012

"Northern Gateway Could Destroy This Country"

What the heck is this post from BigCityLib?

In summary, BCL is saying that the next Liberal leader should oppose the Northern Gateway pipeline because most British Columbians oppose it. Fair enough, I disagree with that but that statement makes total sense. No slippery slope there.

Then he goes on in full rant mode and starts saying that British Columbia will - and to be honest, I get the full implication he feels it should - separate because of the Northern Gateway pipeline. Going on about how the federal government is beholden to the Alberta oil interests and so on. Invoking the NEP and other ideas.

If BCL was exaggerating for the purposes of telling his opinion, then whatever, it's all good - I just think that if he wanted to convince anyone else from the 87% rest-of-Canada, he failed miserably. It just inflammed me, and now I understand why many Canadians say Quebec can go to Hell by themselves if they wish (though I still think its an ignorant, spiteful position, one I don't want to take often if I can avoid it).

But if he was being truthful.... well, I don't want to say those things here. It's just a silly position to take.

24 comments:

  1. It inflamed you? Try living in BC and being told to take one for the team (Canada). Bill C38 was aimed directly at our province I share BCL sentiment that we should start pulling the secession card.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We live in a co-operative federation that will have its rough patches, and I assure you that among the provinces with actual grievances, British Columbia has no place right now.

      Granted the pipeline debate is contentious, but we've had this sort of debate before and no one broke up the country over it. What, British Columbians like you can't grow up and have an adult debate? I'm curious why not.

      Plus, which C-38 are you on about - the SSM Act or the omnibus budget? If its the latter, then please explain how it was "aimed directly at BC."

      Delete
    2. Excuse me? Turning our coast into toilet for the oil patch isn't an actual grievance? Thanks for making BCL's point. Its all relative, maybe you can point to who has a bigger grievance right now than BC?

      The Conservatives have done everything from closing down Coast Guard stations to firing scientists that monitor water pollution to firing the only marine-mammal toxicologist that looks after our whale populations to gutting the fisheries act to closing down the experimental lakes program to closing down the pacific oil spill response center to giving Government the final say on this pipeline regardless of what the National Energy Board rules. Yeah we have no grievance what so ever....The way this Government has been acting towards BC is viewed as radical out here. Sorry if you don't see it that way, that's the problem, if a spill happens on the Coast which there is over a 70% chance of a spill happening, BC pays for it and everyone out East shrugs their shoulders, oh well no skin off Ontario's back.

      Delete
    3. Y'all are so pessimistic - why are you so sure an accident would happen? Granted I understand trying to avoid it, but if the economic benefits outweigh the risks...

      Anyways, I'll give you that yes, if you view it that way, it is a legit grievance - though in my defense I was thinking more about transfer payments and powers, not the environment. It's just difference of views, my apologies.

      The Harper government has done things to ALL of us, in every part of the country that has affected our lives, our safety, and our communities. It isn't "directly targeted at BC" - it's targeted at all of Canadian society. That's how Harper's government is, and I think you should recognize that we should all be united against them for what they've done.

      But hey, if you think its just BC getting the shaft, well you're just selfish and GTFO - it's like Albertans claiming the Liberals have it out for their province. Its just not true.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. "Y'all are so pessimistic - why are you so sure an accident would happen?"

      Well if you knew the geography of BC you would know that the Douglas Channel is one of the top five most treacherous ocean passages in the world. A state of the art ferry sunk there a couple years ago. In a recent study done by engineers which include two emeritus professors from the University of B.C on the proposed supertanker traffic in the Douglas Channel showed that "In fact, consistent with a 200-year return period, there is a probability of 22 per cent that there will be at least one spill during the 50-year operational lifetime for the project," that "When the analysis added the liquefied natural gas tanker traffic projects already under construction, approved or awaiting approval for the port of Kitimat (432 tankers per year), the return period of an incident (tanker collisions or groundings) decreased to 38 years, or a 73-per-cent chance of at least one such an incident during a 50-year operational lifetime.". If there is a spill of diluted bitumen the condensate separates from the bitumen which "forms a toxic cloud, poisonous to all life around the spill," and that unlike conventional oil "bitumen sinks to the bottom in freshwater and to a level below the surface in saline water.” that "In both cases it is almost impossible to clean up and tides and currents can spread it over vast areas, with severe and catastrophic consequences for fisheries, marine life and human safety."

      You go on to bemoan the fact that British Columbians are pissed off, you go on to state "British Columbians like you can't grow up and have an adult debate?" then are completely ignorant to the facts surrounding the issue that's pissing us off. But that's how the debate is going nationally, nobody cares outside of BC.

      Delete
    6. and what if some of us are pissed off enough to start pushing the secession option? Its our business like you said we're part of a Federation and if we decided to leave that's our debate to have as a province.

      Delete
  2. V, I doubt you've ever been to the coast. Those of us who live here are disillusioned with the support we've been expecting from your 87% rest-of-Canada to stop this pipeline madness. We're steadily coming to understand that your 87% needs us one hell of a lot more than we ever needed you. We have a balanced economy that can probably be just as prosperous from strengthened ties to the neighbouring States and the Pacific Rim as the rest of Canada. We expect loyalty to be earned and reciprocated. BCL is right, we're not Quebec. Try to picture Canada "from sea to shining tailing pond."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know enough to comment on whether or not BC would be OK without the ROC, though I think the $6.8-billion in transfers we give you would definitely be a bit of a shortfall - because don't expect it once you leave. I'd fight tooth-and-nail to ensure that didn't happen.

      But yeah, frankly I find "BC Separatists" as silly as Quebec separatists, except with less issues to gripe over. Maybe its just because I'm an ignorant Ontarian (though one-half of my maternal family resides in the province to this day) but I find the threats empty and hollow, and the reasoning even more pathetic.

      It's a pipeline, it isn't the end of the world.

      Delete
    2. No one's talking about "the end of the world." Just British Columbia within Canada. But, young fella, remember you're speaking to people, law-abiding citizens, who are quite willing to be imprisoned before they'll abide this threat to our coast. And your ignorance of this particular pipeline, the terrain it will have to cross, the product it will carry, the treacherous waters (Second Narrows, Dixon Entrance, Douglas Channel and the infamous Hecate Strait) those tankers will have to navigate, the certainty of catastrophic accidents, the operator's repeatedly demonstrated incompetence and neglect, the way the whole business is structured with liability cutouts, the fact that there is no technology extant that will clean up a bitumen spill at sea - where it heads straight to the bottom, and so much more all reveal, Volkov, that you're completely out of your depth on this. You haven't the faintest clue.

      Delete
    3. I think I've made clear, several times, that I KNOW I'm out of my depth on the pipeline-specific issue - I make no bones about it, in fact. I believe what I do because of what I know, and unlike some people I can change my opinions when presented with evidence that I feel outweighs the evidence to the contrary.

      So when you say something like that paragraph above, you're the one showing he has the faintest clue. I never said I knew all. Study the position of your opponents in the future.

      Now, moving on - when did I say anything against the "law-abiding nature" of anyone? Or even mention the issues? Maybe I wasn't clear enough when I said "It's a pipeline, it isn't the end of the world" - what I mean by that it is a pipeline, we've all had these discussions before, we can have talks and disagreements and generally act like adults on the issue, instead of appealing to pure emotion and acting like petulant children or Eric Cartman. "Screw you guys, I'm going home" is a very apt summary of what you and others have presented so far - we don't like this, you have opposite opinion of us, ergo, we're just going to jump to the most extreme conclusion of this debate. I hate when people do this, because it just degrades your entire argument, and you won't be making friends by going there. You won't have a chance at one of the best possible outcomes - staying in Canada, not having the pipeline, being adults - because you've poisoned the well. It's self-defeating, and you're not even doing it for good reasons.

      So understand my issue is not necessarily with the pipeline - I'm not opposed to it, but I don't live there, it doesn't affect me as much as it will you. My issue is with the debate and level you and others are apparently going to bring it towards. There's no place for it in reasoned society, and I would prefer it be kept out. Simple as.

      Delete
  3. Sorry but you can't squirm out of this. You're the one who said, "it's a pipeline." And your issue is "with the debate," really? What debate would that be? Do you mean the thoroughly rigged environmental assessment travesty? Is that a debate? Do you mean the debate over the gutting of fisheries regulations? Or the debate over the gutting of Fisheries & Oceans monitoring services and agencies? Or the debate over the closure of West Coast Coast Guard stations and communications systems? Or the debate over the scrapping of the West Coast tanker exclusion zone? Or, perhaps, you mean the debate over relocating tghe West Coast oil spill emergency centre from British Columbia to Quebec? What debate, Volkov, there are no debates. This is all being done by fiat,against our will and without our consent. What "reasoned society" are you talking about? Your "issue" is meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You sure do love your red herrings. I think I laid out what I said pretty clearly, if you can't understand that, then don't squawk at me.

      If you want to talk about the Harper government's fairly stupid policies in mostly everything, I'm on board for that - but I was going on about BC separation and how childish that kind of reaction is. Keep on that if you can.

      And if you find my "issue" meaningless... well I don't care. My blog, I talk about what I want. Don't like it, don't read it.

      Delete
  4. It's heartening to see one progressive hoisted by his own petard, wielded by a fellow progressive. Ahhh, I remember the good old days when us conservatives, sorry, neanderthals, tried to have a reasonable debate about things only to get shouted down and called racist, homophobe, anti-woman, but it is almost worth it now that those same guns are pointed squarely at other Liberals. Don't bother with science, or risk calculations, or reasonable compromises Mr. Volkov, because there are none to be had with the true zealots of the left. Enjoy, I sure am.

    ReplyDelete
  5. BC pays more in to the federation than it gets back from it, or, at minimum, it's very close.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Don't bother with science, or risk calculations, or reasonable compromises Mr. Volkov, because there are none to be had with the true zealots of the left."

      See the study I just posted about the risk of a tanker spill or would you like the study that cited the statistics from the Alberta Energy Utilities board that shows there has been over 16,000 pipeline leaks in Alberta in 20 years or how in 2010 there was a pipeline "release" every 1.4 days. You people just don't get it, this isn't a Right Vs Left issue it's a BC vs China, Ottawa, Alberta and the oil patch issue. When this pipeline get's pushed through it's going to destroy the Conservatives in this province the same way the Liberals have been destroyed in Alberta. There will be Conservatives up on the blockade being arrested along with with NDPers, Greens and everything else under the sun. This isn't a partisan issue.

      Delete
  6. As a life-long BCer, I duly have to laugh at some of the comments in this thread. BC
    separatism? The extreme right under Doug Christie advocates that under his Western
    Canada Concept for other reasons. No one even knows or cares about this fringe grouping.

    Cycloke said: "Well if you knew the geography of BC you would know that the Douglas Channel is one of the top five most treacherous ocean passages in the world. A state of the art ferry sunk there a couple years ago."

    Cycloke... A "state of the art" BC Ferry sank there years ago??!!! You are sooo factly incorrect I don't know where to begin!

    That was an old, single-hulled ferry purchased from Sweden decades ago and the sinking occurred MUCH farther down south along the INSIDE PASSAGE while the captain was asleep. The sinking occurred due to an alleged sexual tryst between former lovers on the bridge. They were both fired and a criminal investigation was commenced. Remember that?

    ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the Douglas Channel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! haha

    As for the Douglas Channel, Transport Canada, the Canadian Coast Guard, etc. have all given the green light to super tankers traversing Douglas Channel. Years ago it was considered one of the 3 safest ports right down into Washington State. Educate yourself.

    Do you even know that toxic condensate has been shipped into the old Methanex terminal in Kitimat, on behalf of Encana, for almost a decade and shipped via rail to the oil sands in Alberta? The same toxic condensate that is now proposed to be shipped eastward via pipeline?

    Do you realize that pipelines have a much safer track record than rail?

    Are you aware that CN Rail will eventually ship Albertan bitumen to Prince Rupert ("Pipeline on Rail") and, again, that rail transport is not as safe as a pipeline?

    What about the 3+ proposed lng terminals in Kitimat, worth about $30 BILLION, that will require massive lng tankers to traverse Douglas Channel? Most of them have received their environment assessment certificates and have the support of First Nations including the coastal Haisla.

    And will include several pipelines to Kitimat?

    What about the Alaskan oil supertankers traversing right off the east coast of Vancouver Island, since 1977, right past Victoria, into the Strait of Juan De Fuca, past the BC Gulf Islands into Anacortes and Cherry Point, WA. which I can personally see every day???

    What about the whales, orcas and marine life in those areas over the past 35 years?

    What about the Kinder Morgan Transmountain oil pipeline built in the 1950's, which traverses the more important Fraser River watershed, that contains BC's most important salmon fishery?

    Did you know that bitumen is already shipped through that pipeline?

    What about the oil tankers in Vancouver harbour receiving oil from those supertankers?

    Not even the BC NDP opposes the increase in capacity of the Transmountain pipeline, which increase is ABOUT EQUIVALENT to the Northern Gateway pipeline capacity. Why is that?

    Granted, the Northern Gateway pipeline is unlikely to proceed mostly due to First Nations opposition to same and their intention to drag the matter through the courts for another decade.

    But damn, posters here are embarrassing the intellect of BC'ers. And frankly Volkov I am ashamed!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "As for the Douglas Channel, Transport Canada, the Canadian Coast Guard, etc. have all given the green light to super tankers traversing Douglas Channel."

      If you bothered to actually read that report you genius you would have noted that Transport Canada used a calm sunny day as the criteria for the Douglas Channel. Anyone who knows anything about that area of the world knows that a calm sunny day is a minority at best in that part of the ocean. That part of the ocean has also recorded some of the largest waves on earth by I digress because Ive already posted a recent study on the risks which you've conveniently ignored. Not to mention I could post statements from coast guard members in BC talking about the negligence of allowing those types of ships through BC Coastal Waters but you have Google go ahead. Once again the Douglas Channel is considered to be one of the most dangerous passages in the world. Gale-force winds. Thick fog. Crushing snow. Landslides. Waves the height of office buildings, give me a break if anyone knows the that passage it's the locals who you know, live there. Tell me why is every Northern BC town against this if it's such a safe project?

      "What about the 3+ proposed lng terminals in Kitimat, worth about $30 BILLION, that will require massive lng tankers to traverse Douglas Channel?"

      Show me exactly the size of LNG tankers proposed. Give me specific examples of the size of LNG tankers as compared to the ones that are going to haul bitumen.

      "Are you aware that CN Rail will eventually ship Albertan bitumen to Prince Rupert ("Pipeline on Rail") and, again, that rail transport is not as safe as a pipeline?"

      And so what? I'm against that to you genius, I'm against all expansion of the tar sands. Tell me how exporting a non-renewable resource overseas is suppose to help BC out? You do realize that all that's going to do is inflate the cost oil? you do realize that right? You do have even an elementary grasp of economics right? So people like you actually advocate putting our coast at risk for higher energy, fuel and food prices, where do you people come from?

      Delete
    2. "What about the Alaskan oil supertankers traversing right off the east coast of Vancouver Island, since 1977, right past Victoria, into the Strait of Juan De Fuca, past the BC Gulf Islands into Anacortes and Cherry Point, WA. which I can personally see every day???"

      Those tankers don't traverse narrow inside passages like the Douglas Channel, this how I know you have no clue what you're talking about. Those tankers ply out in the open ocean then swing into the strait of Juan De Fuca which by comparison to the Douglas Channel is a fucking cake walk.

      "What about the Kinder Morgan Transmountain oil pipeline built in the 1950's, which traverses the more important Fraser River watershed, that contains BC's most important salmon fishery?"

      Which has leaked every year for the past decade you wanna know why because it's old as fuck just like the one that let go on the Red Deer river which by the way had been leaking steady for a decade as well. So to sit here and go well a pipeline leak hasn't happen YET but with age and stress corrosion the inevitable will happen and let's pray that it doesn't bust on the Fraser. By the way pipelines aren't as safe sorry to tell you. Between 1990 and 2005, the Alberta Energy Utilities Board recorded more than 16,000 "releases" by pipelines, of which more than half involved hydrocarbons and roughly 30 per cent were "hydrocarbon liquid," which would mean oil or distillates.In 2006 pipeline ruptures number in the thousands and have spilled the equivalent of at least almost 28 million litres of oil. In 2010 alone, pipelines in Alberta carrying either oil or some combination of oil, gas or distillates failed on average every 1.4 days and they spilled roughly 3.4 million litres of oil. Do you want to know why? Because Alberta's pipeline infrastructure, just like Trans Mountain Pipeline are failing cause of age.

      "Did you know that bitumen is already shipped through that pipeline?"

      Give me % because I know that conventional crude is shipped through it as well. Do you wanna know something else when a pipeline that's carrying bitumen lets go it sinks in fresh water, do you wanna what technology is capable of cleaning this shit up? None.

      "What about the oil tankers in Vancouver harbour receiving oil from those supertankers?"

      And with the twinning of the pipelines how much more tanker traffic can we expect? The law of probabilities come in to play which means there is a greater chance of a spill and if you bothered to read the study I posted earlier about how dilbut separates and forms a toxic cloud you'll be glad to know that North Vancouver would be gassed.

      "Not even the BC NDP opposes the increase in capacity of the Transmountain pipeline, which increase is ABOUT EQUIVALENT to the Northern Gateway pipeline capacity. Why is that?"

      Are you that thick? Because they are stupid and fucking corrupt. DO you really think the NDP cares about the Northern Gateway Pipeline? This is a political move, they are run by big unions and those will be union jobs on that line you think they're going to bite the hand that feeds? Are you really that politically naive?

      I'll come back tomorrow I've got some other things to contribute such as how LNG if released from a pipeline evaporates that's why certain First Nations will allow this to go through but I'm tired of reading so much stupidity for one day.

      Delete
  7. I'm rereading this thread again... and dammit... it's apparent people still don't know their facts!!!!!

    For example... The Mound of Sound "Or the debate over the scrapping of the West Coast tanker exclusion zone?"

    What the hell are you talking about??????!!

    The U.S. Coast Guard as well as the Canadian Coast Guard came to a non-binding agreement years back for the oil supertankers from Prudhoe Bay, Alaska to Washington State, plodding the waters off BC, to stay off the BC coast fromm 40 to 70 miles to provide the Canadian Coast Guard some breather room in unfavourable weather conditions. THAT'S IT!!!!!

    These same oil supertankers plod right off the east coast of Vancouver Island, past Victoria, into the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Strait of Georgia (in Metro Vancouver). EVERY DAY!!!

    I suggest that you go get a row boat and make a blockade of these oil supertankers!!!! You just might make the 6 o'clock news! :P

    http://www.chamber-of-shipping.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=475&Itemid=87

    ReplyDelete
  8. And finally... a well publicized public opinion poll from Angus Reid Strategies from several weeks ago regarding the Northen Gateway pipeline....

    "Most British Columbians on the Fence on Northern Gateway Pipeline"

    However, half of British Columbians (51%) are currently taking a moderate position of support or opposition that could change depending on specific considerations."

    Nuff said!

    http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/46061/most-british-columbians-on-the-fence-on-northern-gateway-pipeline/

    ReplyDelete
  9. RDS and Rat, thank you both for your posts - especially RDS with all those factoids that I didn't know, they certainly speak volumes about what everyone else is saying here...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ya good factoids Volkov notice how u say nothing about the STUDY I POSTED BY actual engineers. It's funny how the Cons gut the Navigable waters act then pressured Transport Canada officials into passing the Douglas Channel off as being safe and that's a factoid to U? U sound like a bogging tory

    ReplyDelete
  11. Using Elliot Lake as an example of a city transformed from a dying ghost town to an economically thriving seniors' community, Peterborough leaders are working toward building their own profile as a model city of opportunity for both young and old.

    Prince Edward County

    ReplyDelete