Forget the Racists!

OK, so forget that racist comment and start thinking about the oilspills that Kinder Morgan already has caused here!

They did not even have a map of their own pipelines, and seemed offended that so much commotion was made of what they regarded as a minor leakage.

With attitudes like that , who needs them?

one million barrels

That much oil would pretty much cover every beach from the gulf islands to Northern Vancouver.

That's one tanker.

At a tanker a day, the odds are pretty good it will happen eventually.

The Exxon tanker that ran aground in Alaska did so on a nice sunny day because the asshole captain was drunk.

It takes just one mistake.

1% royalities

... for the incredible mess of the extracting the stuff and the water loss and now this. If the profits were going to replace household heating systems with geothermal, etc., it just might be worth it. However, it is going into the coffers of the wealthy and shareholders who invest without morals.

no news

I've been telling people for years that if the Enbridge project gets stonewalled -- and it looks like it will -- watch KM put its plans on a fast track. This one will be much harder to stop, since it simply expands an existing business that has been operating for more than 50 years.

But this has been covered in the MSM to some degree. Why not more? Because ALL media -- MSM and the Tyee -- respond to the loudest voices and the most smoke. On this issue, it has all been directed at Enbridge. The enviros have had their heads in the sand on KM for years.

Personally, I think KM will abandon the Westridge terminal (in spite of their slideshow) in favour of a new port near Roberts Bank. The pipeline route to Washington's Cherry Point can be expanded with a spur running to Roberts Bank. You can get much bigger ships in there, and you don't have to transit two narrow and turbulent channels.

To all those Enbridge-haters -- be careful what you wish for.

I don't want any of them

doing anything on our land, or over our water!

And who is.....

the Morgan part of Kinder Morgan. Couldn't be our new premier's friend of Oil sands fame, or could it??

Refinery

why don't they just build plants to process the crude in Alberta...gotta be cheaper than a pipeline.

The real problem

The real problem is the tar sands oil that does not spill and gets burned in our cars, trucks and airplanes - or get burned in china to make our consumer crap. Global warming is a far greater threat than a few million liters of oil killing off a few killer whales and poisoning the Straight of Georgia for a few decades.

Get a grip. These pipelines are a major climate crime; the occasional spills are a minor detail.

Here are contacts to register your objections.....

All documents and correspondence being filed with the Board should be sent either by facsimile to 403-292-5503 or toll free at 1-877-288-8803 or by Hand delivery, mail or courier to:

Anne-Marie Erickson
Secretary of the Board
National Energy Board
444 - 7th Avenue SW
Calgary, AB T2P 0X8.

The Minister is:

The Honourable Joe Oliver
Minister of Natural Resources
http://contact-contactez.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/index.cfm?lang=eng&sid=7

Unfortunately, they don't accept email documents. Gotta send them the old fashioned way, by fax or mail.....

Kinder Morgan's Oil Tankers

Check out the following report submission and appendix to the National Energy Board from July, 2006, by the B.C. Tap Water Alliance on Kinder Morgan's pipeline expansion and a long chronological history on Kinder Morgan's pipeline oil in Canada.

Main submission - http://www.bctwa.org/NEBSubmission-July10-06.pdf

Oil pipeline and oil chronology - http://www.bctwa.org/NEBSubmission-July10-06-AppA.pdf

In the February 25, 1970 chronology description, the Greater Vancouver Regional District (now, Metro Vancouver)"opposed" the oil explorations and tanker traffic in the Georgia Strait area. Perhaps someone should present a recommendation to a committee and the Board of Metro Vancouver for passing a strong and similar resolution?

Kinder Morgan's oil spills.

Previous Tyee article (2005) - Many spills reported in this article:
http://thetyee.ca/News/2005/08/23/KinderMorgan/

CTV 2009 Burnaby spill article:
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090507/BC_oil_spill_kinder_morgan_090507/20090507?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

2004 San Francisco Bay spill:
http://kindermorganwatch.org/suisun/news/1

2009 New Jersey spill:
http://www.tankterminals.com/news_detail.php?id=1230

2008 report on clean-up of 2005 spill in Plant City Florida

refreshed Plant City Link (from last post)

2008 report on clean-up of 2005 spill in Plant City Florida

http://www2.tbo.com/news/plant-city/2008/sep/17/pc-no-definite-timeline-ar-230856/

Oil, etc.

It seems pretty stupid to deal with energy the way we do however the reason is obvious. More than a few people make big bucks from conventional energy sources and they exercise big influences over the rest of us.

Although those people are simply selfish the rest of us are not much better.

How many of us embrace energy efficient technologies such as florescent bulbs or the most efficient vehicle possible or by not using killing chemicals on our gardens? How many of us have built a net zero energy house and how much has BC Hydro supported alternative energy? Do you support an environmental group, do you walk to work, do you drive a 4x4 or have a V8 or a 2 cycle toy, etc. etc?

The answer is very few Canadians take serious steps to protect our environment or reduce our energy use. Our ignorant governments encourage this short term thinking because they always put money before things that are really important.

That is why we are one of the worst per capita polluters on the planet and there is very little evidence that we are prepared to change in the future.

My condolences to your grand kids!!

Lower Mainland like Great Bear worthy of protection

Like Mitch Anderson, I am perplexed at the comparatively little attention that environmental organizations pay to the growing prospect of massive increases in oil shipments out of the Port of Vancouver.

Given that oil tanker traffic out of Burrard Inlet could increase by a factor of six, you'd think that there would be more than a few environmental organizations requesting standing before the National Energy Board, which will chair hearings into Kinder Morgan's proposals to dramatically ratchet up its Lower Mainland oil shipments with individual tankers that could carry four times more oil than the Exxon Valdez.

Also notably absent is our provincial government which deliberately chose not to seek standing before the NEB. I wonder why? Is it that the province wishes to avoid addressing some glaring deficiencies in its "environmental protection" plans?

Before considering the adequacy or lack thereof of B.C.’s capacity to respond to oil spills and, more importantly, to work proactively to reduce the prospects of such, consider this:

B.C.’s coastline, with its numerous inlets and islands, is 27,000 kilometres long, more than half the Earth’s equatorial circumference. Over this sprawling area, as well as the entire interior of the province, the provincial government deployed 13 full-time staff in 2010 to respond to oil and “dangerous goods” spills.

Just across the border, Washington’s spill prevention and preparedness program has 77.7 full-time-equivalent staff and an annual budget of $29.1 million compared to B.C.’s paltry allocation of $2.5 million. With a hiring freeze in B.C.'s emaciated environmental departments and plans to reduce already gutted staff further through attrition, our government is flirting with an environmental disaster for which it may one sorry day have to claim some responsibility.

An oil spill in the Straits of Georgia and Juan de Fuca would do incredible damage to the environment in the Lower Mainland and southern Vancouver Island, just as an oil spill on the mid coast from a proposed export facility there would wreak ecological havoc in that place that environmentalists have done so much to cement in people's minds as our very own ecotopia - the Great Bear Rainforest.

But the damage to the provincial economy caused by a massive oil release in B.C.'s southern waters would be an order of magnitude greater than on the mid coast, for the simple reason that the southern corner of the province is where most British Columbians live, work and play and where countless business are located, many of them tied to the marine economy.

For that reason, we must insist that our elected leaders are held accountable for ensuring that the highest level of environmental safeguards are in place before any substantial increases in oil shipments out of the Port of Vancouver occur.

Thanks Ben Parfitt

Where is the $25 billion dollar super fund for the clean up and law suits?

A minimum of 2 decades of court battles will ensue after a large spill.

The only ones who will pay will be your children.

Good luck with that!

More than just oil spills

Even without an oil spill this increase of tankers in our harbor is a big problem for lower mainland citizens and our health care system. I speak of the poor air quality these ships contribute to communities from Vancouver to Hope. A study in 2007 conducted by James Corbett of University of Delaware and James Winebrake from Rochester Institute of Technology correlated 60,000 premature deaths a year globally from particulates released from ship smoke stacks. So even with out a spill each of us can only hope we miss the lottery chance of dying from a higher rate of heart disease and lung cancer caused by the increased black carbon, sulfur, nitrogen and organic particles from the stacks of these tankers. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071107100921.htm

This Is Not Sustainable Much Longer...

All of which, especially as the world oil supply diminishes and becomes an increasingly costly commodity, is like watching our forests as raw logs ship to Japan and the US etc. Which is also watching the potential good processing and manufacturing jobs that could be built around them, get pissed away like so much beer down the bar toilet.

This is what "globalization" serving the ruling class "globalized capitalism" interest really gets you: Watching the precious natural and raw material values of your homeland disappear into the "Endless Growth Maw" of insatiable Global Capitalism, creating so-called "wealth" for the few and poverty for the many... via mindless "job creation". (And the reason for the mindless jobs and poverty of the majority is because, as Ed Deak often says, wealth cannot be created... it can only be stolen from others, the mindless and poor, AND at the expense of Nature.

It is a criminal system that needs to be ended, and replaced with new values of sustainability over "endless growth", (which has to include rational human population limits), co-operation rather than greed competition, and equitable and sensible standards of living and health for all. And REAL democracy, in the economy as much as the political institutions.

RE: I don't want any of them

Wish granted. Now, how are you going to travel (if you don't catch the ferry, how do you think everything that isn't grown on the Sunshine Coast gets there?), heat your home, light your home, wash your dishes, have food that you don't grow yourself available to you, blah, blah, blah? The best suggestion is for Alberta to refine the stuff themselves, but the local nimby's won't allow new refineries there and you still have the problem of transporting oil instead of bitumen.

Newsflash.....

Since 1977, oil supertankers from Valdez, Alaska have plied the waters off the east coast of Vancouver Island, through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and into the Strait of Georgia.

That's 34 years!

That's 19,625 loaded oil supertankers (through April 30, 2008) carrying a maximum daily throughput of 2.136 million bbl. or more than 15 billion barrels of crude oil through our waters.

Destination: Cherry Point, WA, and Anacortes, WA. BTW, I can see the lights of the Cherry Point port/refinery from my deck at night.

Of course, there are those that may believe that any spill of this American oil will not cross the imaginery US/Canadian border into Canadian waters. But I digress.

Makes the proposed expansion of the Burrard Inlet terminal look akin to a popsicle stand.

cool hand

Kinder Morgan has pipelines through Washington, Idaho and Oregon states so why is there a need to ship crude from Burrard Inlet?

Cherry Point would make a logical location however Kinder Morgan has no port facilities there. Vancouver Washington however is building more port facilities where potash from Saskatchewan will be stored and shipped to markets in Asia. Saskatchewan is looking to avoid the terrible rail conditions in BC during the winter and of course find cheaper routes and storage for their product. Crude oil could also be shipped out of Vancouver Washington or even St.Helens Oregon where there is ample port property available.

If readers have never seen the tidal rush through the 2nd Narrows you must as it is quite dramatic when the tidal range is greatest. Check a tide table for the best time. There is little room to navigate through the deepest area of the channel at Second Narrows.

If readers can remember in 1979 the Japan Erica collided with the CN rail bridge that crosses the Second Narrows. This collision impacted industrial commerce for three months.

mek

It has absolutely nothing to do with oil tanker traffic.

Further please don't tell me I'm misinformed about fishing in BC waters. I can show you pictures taken last year of a Fraser River full of fish boats. I fully realize that was a rare event lately but that has more to do with over fishing than any environmental disasters. Through management it can be restored to more normal levels.

Please try to compare apples with apples and not some other bizarre fictional fruit.

OH, THE STEVESTON FISHERY STILL DOES EXIST. You just have to be able to use your eyes to see it. I know that's hard for some.

pwlg

Have you ever watched them move a tanker through the Second Narrows? I think not or you wouldn't make the comment about the "tidal rush". Do so and get back to us on just how fast the current is flowing.

They can move 365 boats a year on a full high slack tide, clearance is not an issue.

Risks and numbers

"Since 1977, oil supertankers from Valdez, Alaska have plied the waters off the east coast of Vancouver Island, through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and into the Strait of Georgia. That's 34 years!"

Likewise the offshore oil derricks operating in the Gulf of Mexico. They've operated at least as long and have multiplied similarly. But last summer...

Risk assessment applied to one operation may indicate very low odds of accident, but when continuously multiplied, the odds grow at a similar rate.

It only takes one mistake on the scale of these huge tankers.

middle class: yes its true

middle class: yes its true you have to singlehandedly explain how to power an island if you are to be credible enough to criticize billions of barrels of oil going through burrard inlet. and if your answer is anything except oil or tar sands bitumen that reportedly takes as much energy to extract than what you get back from it, then you're naive somehow. the best solution is a moratorium on tar sands mining and developing alternative energy... also a point should be made that the oil/energy is going to china, not powering dishwashers in the sunshine coast

who can predict what'll set off alberta's nimbys if flaming tap water and cancers and permanent devastation doesnt bug them. i wish they were even more particular, then they could get rid of the whole operation. nimbys of the world unite.. and fax those guys

How soon they forget

In August 2002, the Cap Rouge II fishing boat capsized near the mouth of the Fraser River. There were seven people on board. Five people lost their lives, including two children.

Spills and Jobs

One can readily imagine the huge increase in short term job opportunities from Petro Chemical spill cleanups, is this what BC Liberals and Federal Conservatives are hoping for?

The coyote is joined by the owl :-)

So many still see our surroundings the way capitalists saw such, even prior to the birth of this nation; endless forests, fish forever, immigrating colonists to do the work (currently 1 million every four years), resources just waiting to be extracted and exported to the heart of empires (but not processed here), a few powerful beneficiaries while most just go about their personal lives. And this, of course, can go on far into the foreseeable future.

Some are starting to come to the realization that its a false vision, but change is costly to the first adapters.

The powers that be don't want to risk losing their prolific profits.

Most people will support these because they fear risking their relatively good lifestyles.

Build the early 1800s canals, the late 1800s railways, the highways, the pipelines and then increase production as much and as quickly as possible before such become too scarce to be profitable. Globalize to get the biggest bang for those resources, even as good jobs are outsourced. Environment is only economical for tourism, otherwise mostly useless.

Such is the false vision of the elite and those who have been indoctrinated by their media and other institutions.

What if everyone along the coast said NO to pipelines and megatankers? Surely division would follow as many would be cajoled or coerced into accepting the elite view, just as is the HST case now. Fear of not being able to afford that lifestyle turns many.

Its only after a spill or a meltdown that a few more, mostly those affected, begin to look for that alternative vision. Change will slowly come but the payments will be much higher.

Ban all unprocessed resources from leaving our country

Ban raw log export
Ban oil exports

Burrard Inlet

I grew up in Burnaby when hunters hunted ducks on the marshes that were subsequently obliterated by the transCanada highway and when steelhead fishermen took legal limits of steelhead from Brunette Creek and the Coquitlam River. My chums and I flushed pheasants in every field we passed through. As splendid as all those places were, there was no place like Burrard Inlet where we caught Tommy Cod, Rock Cod, sea bass, pile perch, flounders, bullhead, pile perch, and shiner with hooks baited with sea worms we found under barnacle studded rocks that were everywhere on the beaches. I can't imagine a richer marine environment than inlet named for Captain Burrard was then. Then, over the few short years that was my boyhood, oil began to seep into the habitat there. Over time the small crabs that scurried toward the sea when we turned over a rock on our quest for sea worms were gone, replaced by pools of oil. The worms were gone too. Our abundant fishery became a shade of its former self and has never returned. None of this was due to a tanker running aground or one of those catastrophic disasters that seems to occur weekly. It was a result of the quotidian spills that result from the daily transporting and handling of oil.

snert

And yes, I have seen many ships enter through the narrows during the peak of high tide (slack) with only 1.5 meters to spare in terms of depth. That's not much of a cushion. Given the draft of some of these oil tankers, which can exceed 24 meters, the ports east of the narrows limit the size of the ships. Pacific Coast Terminals has a depth of only 12.5 meters at zero tide.

As we have all learned technical aspects can be massaged to fit a proposal but the main cause of oil tanker spill disasters is human error. Equipment can fail also including navigation and communication devices which are essential for passage through the narrows.

Not only are tides a factor while navigating through 2nd Narrows but so is wind even at slack flood tide. Another factor is visibility even with radar as it is an area known for fog during part of the year so your estimate of 365 ships a year is not something the shipping industry should count on. There is also an issue with vessel height during some high tides. The narrows and bridge limit what size ship can pass through. Height (air draft) is restricted at 44 meters above waterline.

Large ship freighters and oil tankers navigating through the narrows are required to have escort tugs and are restricted to daylight operation only which should indicate to even the greatest booster of Kinder Morgan's proposal that there is a significant risk moving through the narrows.

By the way, the current at surface through the narrows is 9 knots during peak tidal movements. Even at depths current has been recorded as 1.5 m/s. Ships passing through the narrows have a very limited window to do so as currents must be less than 1 knot. Larger vessels are also restricted to speeds no greater than 6 knots while passing through the narrows. A large tanker traveling at 6 knots in an emergency and having to use its anchor for a brake will take 300 meters to come to a dead stop (in slack waters).

Too much risk when there are far better options.

And thanks to the reader who provided the Victoria newspaper article as an example of the differences between how the US responds to potential oil spills and BC/Canada.

Ban it all - the Gods will know the diff

"Ban all unprocessed resources from leaving our country"

Ooh, the absolutist approach. Is it a fair guess that many of the writers live in the lower mainland? I cannot help asking why. We all know the big one can hit any time, any day. Maybe five minutes from now. Think of all the ugly stuff that is 'contained' in various ways here, and the ramifications of much of it spilling everywhere if the 'containment' provisions aren't sufficient! To the tune of not taking any risk, even the most judiciously calculated one, no one who want to ban everything should be living here, as they ought to not dare.

"The most obvious is why Washington State officials -- who were notified of the grounding by B.C.'s Environment Ministry -- considered this important enough to tell the public about, while provincial and federal agencies here stayed silent."

Maybe because Americans, as a whole, are more prepared than we are to live with calculated risk, less 'omigod' prone,so to speak. Yes, I know, this is a broad generalization, but many of my best friends are Americans, and so I do note that difference. I contend that they understand better than we do here in Lotusland, that comfort and control over aspects of one's life has a price, namely risk. Therefore, you can tell them the truth, while we may be less able to 'handle the truth'. Why do so many of 'their' environmental goon squads have branch offices here? could it be because business is actually better here, as we do not see both sides of the coin so well, but can be prevailed on to make 'safe-at-all-costs choices?

As far as 'value added industries' go. I grew up in a country that can - or at least could -import raw materials, process them, and compete on the quality of the product to the extent that a profit could still be made on exports. This, however, presupposes a work ethic, competence and basic schooling of everyone, which we here are still miles and miles away from.

In an old Red Cross manual I trained by, there was a foreword stating among other things, that one could approach quality control on a basis of 'quest for excellence' or 'just scraping by well enough to not get in trouble'. The manual advocated the former, but we know that Red Cross ultimately acted out the latter and 'got in trouble'.

The answer to calculated risk being unacceptably high is not necessarily 'banning', but is often 'a quest for excellence'. Said country did, however, ban the use of asbestos in construction in the 1960's as I recall, seeing the risk was inherent and could not be overcome by better practices. This distinction is vital and should always be part of the discussion. The oil tanker flips can be overcome. Captains do not have to drink, and anchors do not have to fail.

PLEASE do not quote Murphy's law! Roberto Luongo knows better, and so should we all...

Actually,

The thing I DO have something against in these 'grand plans' is that they will take resources out of North America. I think we should keep them here. China went to war over not sharing anything with others. 'Why we so dumb?' Are we not inviting them to 'pee in our tank'?

pwlg

Excellent Post. Another concern is the river cross current just east of the bridge that changes with the amount of runoff as well as the timing of slack changing with wind conditions in the gulf. The final say on this of course will be the Pilots.

SaltAir

Not the most logical debate

"The Chinese are hell bent on world domination, fake goods, cyber attacks, censorship, dictatorship, human crimes, and when the Chinese see an easier mark they will move on, when the future arrives and oil is either gone or not needed our we will be left hanging our head in shame over the destruction of the land."

Substitute Americans for Chinese in that paragraph, and wonder at the similarities. Nor have we Canadians any monopoly on the beautiful and righteous in the land.

Every barrel shipped increases the risk of a pollution event, regardless of what you call it. That's the common ground between all parties here. The question is, what is our response? Banning traffic and shipment? Improving response and communications? A third way?

Yapping about a herring fishery vanishing when I have some of the overcatch from 2009 still in my freezer merely impoverishes debate. The biggest threat to any fishery anywhere has always been and continues to be commercial fishers.

PS - anyone with any good ideas on what to do with them, let me know. It's not the world's best barbeque fish.

About the Harper Military Buildup.....

.....China is undergoing a massive military buildup, and it was suggested that "the west" has to undergo a buildup of it's own to counter this apparent "threat".

So the "logic" here is: we sent our manufacturing to China to bolster the bottom line and increase profits. The Chinese in turn prospered and turned some of this prosperity into military modernization. Now we feel we must do the same. So if we hadn't sent our industrial capacity off the China, that country wouldn't have the resources to do what it is doing, and we wouldn't have to commit our dwindling resources to "defense".

And to top this off, the "profits" are enjoyed by the shareholders of the corporations that set up in China - but the costs of countering Chinese military buildup are coming out of taxpayers pockets. WOW!

Flipping $%^??

"Substitute Americans for Chinese in that paragraph..."

Why substitute anything anywhere? Please don't tell me you don't think this fits with the Chinese? One thing is the paranoid superior Daleks they are governed (as in 'controlled') by, but it is certainly easy enough to draw the red line from them to the impressive theatrics we have seen lately in the attempt at dominating the little real estate 'world' at UBC, where a group of people are worried about their property values. I fully expect this to get uglier, before we see the end of it.

These clashes are rare. Most of the time, the friction never happens, due to a degree of voluntary segregation, or alternatively is overcome by the lubrication of enough wealth to keep the distance from those who cannot be dominated. But the urge to control is part of Chinese culture. Read your history. And in the daily grind, if you are not choking on your own political correctness or are one to take well to being dominated, you will eventually have the scars to prove it. I expect people will plaster all kinds of ugly names on me for saying that, but so be it. I believe we are not serving anything useful by denying the real differences between cultures, and it is a fact the Chinese culture never has been, and is not now, egalitarian. I am not advocating hate or any such thing, just that we recognize the Truth, so we won't fall into shock every time we see another Tiananmen Square, big or small. I believe if we fail to, we are creating a far more dangerous situation. Chalk my 'attitude' up to the Danish national Characteristics if you will. We are not liked for it everywhere, but it was a Dane who authored 'the Emperor's new clothes'.

So yes, for every bit of bolstering we give to the Chinese economy and mushrooming might, we are being patently stupid. Buy Canadian or American, or live to see the fallout.

Thank you Dorothy!

You are brave Dorothy!
Our "free enterprise" governments do their best to create sales to China, in some misguided attempt to show that our economy is improving!
You are also correct that the work ethic here lacks along with proper education and training in the areas where it counts --- such as requiring that engineers have actual "hands-on" training and that middle managers learn exactly what the jobs are they they"manage".

Don't mistake me

for some China-booster. I'm not, I never have been, and I particularly resent how their country has been catered to in the name of business without one scrap of honour for Canadians arising out of it.

I'm just pointing out how blind we are to the way business has been done for nearly a hundred years here. It's no different whether it's China or America - the business is equally immoral, counterproductive, selfish and polluting. Trying to pretend one is more moral than the other is equally ignorant.

...which makes you racist, Dorothy. I'm sure I've said it before, and probably will again, but your arguments hold no water when you go down that road. This is an argument about the ways of business set against the desires of the majority to preserve the environment. For all you or Fowl knows, that oil could end up in Japan, where the desire for energy is now turning in new directions.

On a Clear Day You Can See All the Environmental Fanatics

Nothing brings out the extreme, impractical, left wing utopian, self-loathing fanatics who will do anything to drag our society and economy back to the Stone Ages all in the name of a new religion called environmental fanaticism. It's actually right up there with Islamic fanaticism. If only we could extinguish evil capitalism we could all live happily on crunchy granola on our commune wind farms. The previous poster Dorothy was right. Their vision of society is more like "Mad Max" than a hippy commune.

Tankers with dangerous materials have been plying our coast and harbour for decades. Safety measures like double hulled tankers and multiple harbour pilots make a big difference in safety. No, nothing is absolutely safe and imposing that standard only shows you are unconstructive and indolent. In that case, why do you step into an airplane or snowboard? And don't forget that Hibernia has operated safely so if the people in the Maritimes can do this then why can't BC? The answer: like Dorothy said BC is the home of environmental fanatics. Lotusland culture supports and unifies all these groups with a far too tolerant attitude.

BC needs this and more- offshore oil exploration and production for our economy. If you want to end homelessness then the money will come from industry. BC needs these high paying oil jobs. Have you seen how terrible the wages are in BC? I wonder how young people can ever get a start.

Dorothy is right, Americans are used to taking risks and paying a price for their way of life. They know nothing is for free. The enviro-nuts in BC are totally oblivious to this and think someone else should pick up the tab. Or all of us and the world are better off being poor and saving the whales, and that mankind is an awful affliction upon Mother Earth.

Don't blame China. For you anti-China types, get over it, the ascendancy of China is here to stay. And for you shortsighted environmentalists, it is far less polluting and environmentally damaging for China to improve its standard of living than to remain in poverty.

The oil pipeline and shipping is a great opportunity for BC to make money, to raise our standard of living and govt services. Too bad the First Nations might blow that chance by delaying the process and forcing the pipeline to be diverted. Canadians can't understand how the First Nations can be so poor while receiving so much govt aid yet turn away business so easily. There is not a single Chinese, new Canadian who sympathizes and understands for such a self-defeating people. China and Chinese are about lifting an entire nation out of poverty. What are the First Nations about?

So if voters and politicians are smart, they will ignore the protesters and make the right choice and better our entire province.

The oil pipeline isn't about improving anything

It might be about clinging to our current extravagance as if it were a virtue, but it isn't about improving our standard of living.

As for Americans taking all the risks, Canada is not in Iraq but we are neck-deep in Afghanistan and Lybia. Don't tell us that isn't about oil.

Tax, regulate

There are two questions here - extract the oil, ship the oil.

The oil from the tar sands is going to be extracted - we cannot stop that.

Given that reality it makes sense for BC to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs.

Yes, spills happen. However, only a very small percentage of oil shipped in tankers spills. We should insist that the protocols used in BC waters are world class. Only the best ships, only in good weather, only with experienced pilots. In short, only using known safest practices.

Yes, pipelines leak. We should insist on only world class pipelines and inspection systems. We should insist on pipeline instrumentation that would detect leaks the instant they happen. We should insist on regular inspection of the entire pipeline. There are thousands of construction jobs and hundreds of maintenance jobs that should go to people in BC.

Second, we should make them pay for it. We should collect transmission royalties from every barrel of crude that flows through BC. Significant royalties. We should ramp the entire royalty package so that BC gets a huge piece of the final per barrel price tag, after actual costs. If it costs $60 a barrel to get the oil to the tanker and the current world price is $100, BC should get at least half of the net - $21 a barrel.

Right now, Canadian crude going into the US is selling for much less than world prices. We are subsidizing the US because we have pipelines only into the US. That is just stupid. Shutting down this pipeline would continue that stupidity. Creating the option for a second market to ensure Canada gets the world price for its oil only makes sense. Right now we are not making sense.

Summary

Do it but do it right and make them pay. Maximize the return to BC (not Kinder Morgan and the oil companies).

It's also a question of timing

The Tar Sands DO NOT HAVE TO BE DEVELOPED NOW...just as the Mackenzie Valley pipeline was put off by the concerns raised because of the Berger Report (1977), the pace and staging of the exploitation of the Tar Sands resource should be subject to effective and thorough analysis.

Canada should only develp enough of the Tar Sands resource to meet its own DOMESTIC needs - the suggestion that we should be solving American and Asian petrochemical 'desires' at the cost of our own environmental and energy security future is absurd.

There are things which are far more important than money.

Maximizing returns is frequently short sighted and in this case - especially given the fact that the major players are all foreign - the benefits will not outweigh the costs.

pwlg

1.5 meters ,eh, at least a tanker wouldn't have far to sink.

Even the 'inadequate' depth of the channel can be adjusted if it were to actually become an issue which I don't believe it will.

It's only a close call if paint is exchanged.