To fix the problem is quit

To fix the problem is quit simple. Whomever (politician or business person) allows any tanker traffic on our coast and there is an oil spill, they will be responsible for the clean up. Plus they too will be expected to be "on the tools" at the spill sight until the job is finished.

the tankers are going to

the tankers are going to sail, that is a fact. There is too much ranged against concern for irreplaceable beaches and habitat. Too much money, too much power, too much greed and too many guns.

Best to prepare remedial efforts so they can respond quickly, that is regrettably the best that can be done.

sidebar: of course there is going to be a normal reaction by decent people that wish to see the world preserved for their children, Some of these will inevitably pick up the gun instead of the mop. That is human nature and nothing can be done about that. We have already seen a little of that here and there (the Encana bombings come to mind). What I predict though, is that like any asymmetrical warfare, it will be tuned for maximum results for minimum output. Any logical observer can only conclude that precise strikes against perceived-to-be reponsible individuals is the next level of escalation. I suspect that we will see evidence of this acknowledged by a conspicious absence of those likely targets from any public gathering.

Enbridge's Responsibility

For all of Enbridge's crowing about how responsible they are going to be, their responsibility ends once the oil is loaded onto the ship. From there on, the responsibility is passed to the ship captain, the ship owner, the pilots, the tug owners the tug captains all the way down to number 3 messboy in the bowels of the tanker. At any point, any one of them can say "It was not my fault".

!.4 Billion dollars in a "cleanup fund" sounds like a lot of money, but we must remember that cleanup of the Exxon Valdez spill cost more than 2 billion dollars on the initial cleanup stage. Twenty years later there is still oil sludge in Prince Williams Sound, and Exxon is still refusing to pay all the costs associated with this spill.

Enbridge's responsibility stops at the loading dock, but they would still have to get the oil to that point, through several high mountain passes that are prone to avalanches and landslides. It could take a couple of hours for pipeline monitors to notice enough of a drop in line preassure to recognize a land-based spill, and given the territory, a lot longer to get to the area to repair it. Cleanup would be impossble.

The end product of this project would be less than 30 permanent Canadian jobs. That is not enough to warrant taking any chance on our environment to enhance someone else's corporate profits.Nothing that I have read or seen has convinced me that Enbridge or their ilk would be any better corporate citizens than Exxon.

Do you belive?

"If we did not believe that the movement of petroleum goods could be done safely, either in a pipeline or by vessel, we would not have proposed the project."

Halelejuh they believe!

Seekers o0f the temple of Mammom!

There's riches to be won, as we are an 'energy superpower', right Prime Minister Harper!

tanker safety

We must not forget that everybody preformed as they where trained and that the safety equipment preformed as was expected. The master and pilot made a concsious decision to run the bow into the shore rather than to turn away from the shore and risk exposing the vessel to sideswiping the shore and opening up the fuel tanks. This is what happened with the Queen of the North. All deepsea vessels are designed to take a tremendous of damage to the bow and still return to port with leaking cargo and remaining afloat. With two escort tugs this accident would not have happened. For more than the past thirty years there have been tankers passing through Rosario Strait and Boundry Pass without incident and I don't see why we should not expect the same result in Douglas Channel

even long after electric cars

become the rule rather than exception, it will be a status symbol among the rich to drive gas buggies. Knowing they have turned the Pacific Northwest into a tar barrel will just add to the glow. One has to be very important indeed to rate ahead of the environmental health of a whole region. (cue Mr. Burns and See My Vest!")

that should read without

that should read without leaking cargo.

Asking the right question

When it comes to oil spills, it's not a question of if, but when.

Then stop using petroleum

Anyone who is totally against the shipment/transport/pipelining of petroleum should cease the use of any petroleum products immediately, Otherwise they are damn hypocrites. From Weebo Ludwig to Suzuki, and all the "concerned" Douglas Channel Watchers, they all use their gas/diesel-powered vehicles. Talk is cheap.

Tankers should not operate on autopilot in narrow channels

Tankers and other vessels including cruise ships should not be running on autopilot in narrow channels. A gyro or other failure can result in dramatic course changes in confined waters, with possible catastrophic results. These vessels need to be manually conned.

Super tug escorts are cheap insurance against a propulsion or steering malfunction.

possible solution

Make the directors and senior management of this and other companies who want to ship dangerous cargo through Kitimat PERSONALLY responsible for ALL costs of any cleanup necessary. Not just the surface cleanup, as done with the Exxon Valdez, whose company left thousands of litres of oil behind on the beaches, but all the costs for a 100% cleanup.

Not just the corporation, which can then declare bankruptcy after paying out millions to these decision makers, but the decision makers themselves.

Then see how keen they are to promote the safety of their ideas.

Corporations

Corporations have been assigned the same same rights and duties of a person however the agents of the Corporations are not held liable for the actions of the Corporations. We as living beings also have a Corporation in the form of the NAME(our person) however we as agents for our corporate NAME(person) are led to believe we are responsible for the actions(like traffic tickets and other taxes disguised as fines)of our corporate NAME(person). Why the discrepancy ?

The only way to make the agents of the corporations responsible is to go after them as men and women privately as private men and women not through the corporation. We need to file Notices upon all men and women acting as MP's and Corporate Agents that they will be held privately responsible for all damage they cause us and the environment through their public actions and that we will seize their assets to help pay for the harm they have caused.

Or we can act as irresponsibly as they do and not be held liable for the actions of the corporate NAME(person)we have just as the agents of all other corporations do. I myself prefer to cause no harm and be responsible if by accident I do cause harm but not be responsible if no harm is done(as in all taxes disguised as fines). Which do you choose ?

Stopping the Northern

Stopping the Northern Gateway project will not deprive the world of much needed (?) oil. It will slow down shipments out of the tarsands and hopefully restrain some of tarsands investors from extracting the black gold as fast as our government allows them to. Don't forget that they already have a large web of pipelines out of Alberta.

There is no way the world can go cold turkey from oil. Now is the time, though, to seriously start looking for alternatives so we can wean the population from this very destructive dependence.

The oil industry doesn't 'need' this pipeline and they don't 'need' the profits. They are pushing for these pipelines strictly because of greed.

On sanctions for spills. How

On sanctions for spills. How about the North Korean solution (they have just executed the official in charge of their recent currency reform). It could be applied to the CEOs of every company with investments -- or contracts with -- the pipeline co.

Really, how does it make any

Really, how does it make any sense to build a pipeline clear across the province for the purpose of shipping this shit to Asia when the entire eastern half of the country imports oil from the Middle East? If we are going to let them continue to mine the crap, can't we at least require them to refine it in Canada?

Stephanie T couldn't have said it better

"....the entire eastern half of the country imports oil from the Middle East? If we are going to let them continue to mine the crap, can't we at least require them to refine it in Canada?"

The negative environmental impacts of extracting oil from the tar pits, including the contamination of both the land and the watersheds, is astronomical. The use of natural gas in the extraction process is depleting that supply and forcing up the costs for domestic users.

Mega business ethics remain an oxymoron. Instead of first processing Canadian resources in Canada for Canadians our politicians give them away to others for less than their value.

Export of whole logs, particlaily to the US, are another one of those give-aways.