Someones not telling the whole story

Why would a federal and provincial government risk so much alienation of its populace over the extreme anti-environmental fallout from the pipeline and all of Harper's de-regulation of the resource sector???
I think that possibly looming on the horizon is a crisis that governments are not telling us about, either fiscally or with the environment. Why else would they risk so much for so little? Too divide a counrty and province for the sake of a few jobs? They must know that there is much a stake here which is not in the big picture. Canadians will eventually stand up to this movement to destroy our coast, oceans and planet but at what cost to Harper and Clarks reputation? It is a gamble with something else in the mix which they are not telling us. What is that other factor?

We Are The People

I agree with 'Forest Lover' that some very unseemly information is being withheld from us by the powers that be and their impotent msm poodles, regarding their maniacal fervor for this environmental disater in the making.

Both Harper and Clark's reputations, fatally flawed from the beginning, are now already mortally wounded, and the mad scramble by Harper's moor hounds like Duncan, Oliver, kent, et alia, to somehow mollify us with their mindless, quixotic frothings, only makes us more suspicious.

Clearly it is up to the people of BC to join forces with our First Nations brothers and sisters, and with steely resolve, be prepared to confront these traitorous, shallow, imbecilic miscreants at every depth and level of their depravity.

Whatever it takes, we will not sell our souls to this corporate propelled juggernaut, nor break the faith that our ancestors bequeathed to us, and we in turn must preserve for future generations.

This war is being fought on many fronts, whether it be Enbridge, Marine Harvest, CN/BC Rail and perhaps as yet unknown others, but each battle must be won and will be won, by the people.

Whatever it takes.

Who gets the oil is irrelevant

A great article until it gets to the last paragraph.

This pipeline is wrong whether the oil goes to a capitalist country or a Communist. It is wrong whether the people are Chinese or Caucasian. It is wrong if we shipped the tar to India's capitalist economy.

It is wrong whether it is financed from Wall Street or Fleet Street just as much as if it was financed by banks in Beijing or Hong Kong.

Cheap shots against China do nothing to enhance the debate and merely look like bias against the country and its people.

I doubt if it could be called "under-estimated"

That would imply that some effort, however feeble, had actually been applied to a risk assessment.

I agree with forest_lover and Ron Wilton

Also consider the computer hacking scandal from not too long ago. If, as has been suggested, it was the Chinese hackers who broke into our government computers, did they find something very damaging to or about Harper? Why else would he be so willing to destroy Canada to appease the Chinese?

Where will those pipes be

Where will those pipes be manufactured? Just wondering if the steel that fails will come from the scrap from the BC forest industry sent to China.

Here's a great opportunity.

Risk assessment is a valid issue. Rather than pull the usual whining and snivelling about how the pipeline should never be built why not focus on ensuring that the risk assessment is carried out as thoroughly as possible and that the best possible spill mitigation procedures are in place.

It wouldn't hurt, either, to have a clear understanding of just who might be held accountable both physically and financially in the event of an actual spill.

The vast majority of people have no concept of risk tolerance. They very seldom, if ever, stop to think about the threat that they are under as they hurtle down a two lane highway towards opposing traffic.

The risks are manageable so the project should go through. Risk tolerance is a far bigger issue and it is MHO that there are a number of hypersensitive people trying to run unproductive interference with the project.

-------------------------------------------

Below is a rather disturbing video of just how fast a day can go bad. Watch it then re-evaluate your risk tolerance. Don't make the mistake of blaming the driver that lost control. Fault is not the point.

http://rmirror.net/r/videos/comments/q5hu9/car_accident_nsfl/

The risks are manageable so the project should go through.

Well, isn't that just silly! Now - if the risks involved were to be suffered by those creating the risks, that is acceptable.

Reminds me of a story I heard recently about the Giant mine in Yellowkife. Seems that upper management of the mine had accoommodations built on the minesite, some 10 miles out of town, while the lowly workers had to find accommodation in town and drive that 10 miles every day. Now, some decades later, those managers are dead of heavy metal poisoning, et al, while the grunts aren't faring nearly as badly.

Justice served after a fashion. But today's management leads from behind. And in the case of Enbridge, that would be from Calgary and points south, while they get to offload the risk to anyone but themselves.

Sorry but, who gets the oil IS relevant.

I think the fact that it is all for export is relevant because there is then so little benefit. It would certainly be relevant if it were fuelling an economy in direct competitions with Canada. It would certainly be relevant if it were fuelling an economy that oppresses its people or we would be sending it to North Korea and maybe we are indirectly. It is all relevant because it is a Canadian resource and last I heard Alberta was in Canada. It is all relevant because to get it out Alberta needs to go across B.C.and B.C bears all the risk and none of the benefits.

"The risks are manageable..."

"The risks are manageable..." How do you know?

There hasn't been a satisfactory answer to why not build the refineries in Alberta. If the resource is so vast and valuable, it's in the national interest to refine it ourselves for our own needs and export any surplus. Getting it to eastern Canada is far easier over relatively flat terrain. We all know intuitively that a dilbit spill in the mountains would never be adequately cleaned up, it can't be done. Nor can a bitumen spill in the ocean.

How much

Can you bring sea life back to life with money. You could put an ocean of money on top of dead oil drenched sea life and it will not come back to life. The only thing that insurance would do would make it look like Enbridge was attempting to do something if there was an oil spill. Placating the people of BC, supposedly.

I watched the hearing Canada had after the Gulf Spill they were

on CPAC the summer before last it was the biggest farce the NEB is the biggest farce board that was ever stacked by a government they don't accept conflict of interest and their liability is capped at 500 million or so the rest means individuals have to sue for damages as individuals could ever go against the oil companies it was a joke complete joke-IF those hearings are in the archives I would recommend everyone watch them. The most honest reports came from non profit environmental groups-the government and oil company presentations were a sham.

It is bad enough corporations try to hoodwink the public

but when the government is in cahoots with them nothing short of a social tusammi will stop them. Hope the people of Greece get behind the Syriza Party and that whole rotten Anglo American Aristocracy is brought to the ground.
RR

Quote: Well, isn't that just

It matters not. You have people exposing themselves to danger on your behalf every day of the week. Did the truck driver in that video survive? Was he delivering goods to your local grocery store? What was his risk tolerance?

You're not going to tell me that you've suddenly turned into a hypocrite, are you?

Anytime you do anything there is risk hence the reason for assessments the sole purpose of which is not just to cancel projects.

oneconcerned

Certainly not, What ever gave you that idea? Time is certainly required, that and stop eating the fish.

Cynic

The last time I checked, today, there had been no major disasters in petroleum transportation industries. It would appear that the risks were managed.

If that can be done for one day it can be done for a thousand.

As with nature itself we are not perfect. Shit does happen and that is why we have become pretty good at mitigating it. We are not perfect yet but we can come close sometimes.

One also has to keep in mind that not all petroleum spills are catastrophic and the goal should be to see that that catastrophes do not happen. It is not unachievable one.

Oh that word "managed".

It is so hard to pin down. Who cleaned up, who paid, what was the lasting damage, was the problem ever corrected or "managed". You know "managed" is one persons solution and another's whitewash. Managing might just be dying slower than otherwise. In Syria the some people "manage" to survive.

"If that can be done for one

"If that can be done for one day it can be done for a thousand."

Ever heard of "the odds"? Every day that goes by where oil is transported guarantees the eventual catastrophic spill. I stand by my statement that oil spills in the mountains or in the ocean cannot ever be satisfactorily cleaned up. The point is, the risk is unacceptable, the cost is too high. If we weren't so deeply indoctrinated by the elite's capitalist pigism, projects like northern gateway would be unthinkable.

Skywalker & Cynic

Ahhhhhh... not sooooo fast!

Some interesting insights from Alberta government sources about the financial benefits to be shared with BC. Still at an early "hush-hush" stage but nevertheless:

1. The AB guvmint is contemplating assisting in the construction of a heavy oil upgrader in Kitimat - ~$5 - $10 billion capital investment;

2. The AB guvmint is also internally looking at sharing increased oil revenues with the BC guvmint and FN as a result of higher prices/volumes of the NG pipeline- potentially $10's billions to BC and FN's;

Nothing to sneeze at and such future propositions will likely take the matter over the top politically.

http://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2012/06/could-profit-sharing-get-landlocked-alberta-crude-to-the-pacific/

Well blow me down. Since 1977 Alaskan pol supertankers have plied off BC's west coast, along the west coast of Vancouver Island, past Victoria, through the Straight of Juan De Fuca and into the Straight of Georgia.

Since the 1950's, the Trans-Mountain pipeline traverses BC on a longer route than the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline. More importantly, it traverses the massive fish-bearing Fraser River and all its tributaries. Thousands of streams.

And oil tankers have been delivering oil from Burnaby through the Georgia Straight since the 1950's.

What I don't get is why you haven't protested these events over the past few decades? The proposed Northern Gateway pipeline is relatively puny compared to Alaskan oil supertankers and the Trans-Mountain pipeline.

sneert

Yes - but it sure is nice when the consequences of risk are off loaded while the initiater pockets the cash.

snert

As the article noted:
"Clean-up and remediation costs now total $765-million but only three of 39 miles of river contaminated have been reopened"

And you said:
"The last time I checked, today, there had been no major disasters in petroleum transportation industries

Might I also, for your benefit as well as Cool Hand's, mention the Exxon Valdez (still not cleaned up), the Amoco Cadiz in France, as well as any number of Russian oil spills.....

RickW

Emphasis on the word today.

Well, here's you chance to do something constructive, make sure that doesn't happen___ without stopping the project.

And then there's this.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/06/05/bc-gateway-pipeline-first-nations.html

Hard to see your point, Cool

Hard to see your point, Cool Hand. And what's with your question "What I don't get is why you haven't protested these events over the past few decades?" What do you know about what I've been up to?

But you go ahead and be an apologist for the powers that be. Your name is legion, fully indoctrinated, can't let go.

Skywalker

The point of my first comment was this very same issue. Rather than waste time obstructing the project work at making sure there is a clear understanding as to who is responsible for what.

I keep forgetting, though, that it is much easier for lazy protesters to just say 'no' than it is for them to say 'let's see if we can do this better'.

snert

Not good enough - unless the responsible party is required to immediately cease all business until the remediation work is complete. That's the ONLY "stick" that will work.

snert

As for FN signing up, not naming which ones did so is no better than protesters wearing masks.

RickW

Ahhh, the olde stick mentality____OK.

I hope you didn't hurt yourself reaching for that one.

The Importance of Accountability

Very interesting and eye-opening article. The blatant disregard Enbridge seems to have for the health and safety of those who live BC is not acceptable. It's companies with such lax regulations as these, and events like the one in Kalamazoo, that show just how dangerous the changes to environmental law in Bill C-38 can be. Although it apparently tries to, Enbridge should never be allowed to forget the massive spill in Kalamazoo and just how unprepared they are to deal with it.

People don't want better

Most people in BC could care less if there's oil spills along the coast or in the rivers crossed by the pipeline. That's why they vote for people like Campbell and Harper.

When a few people raise the issue they're shouted down by those that want to bend over backwards for the oil companies.

We'll end up doing it the way its always done here, politicians will tell us everythign will be fine, companies will get the go ahead, problems will happen and the clean-up will be half-hearted and paid for by the taxpayers but we'll be told those problems have been fixed.

Then it'll happen again and we'll be told it was a new problem, something nobody (except radical environmentalists) could have foreseen. And that too will be paid for by the taxpayers while at the same time shareholders will be cheering at the meetings when they're told profits are higher than ever and governments are cutting their taxes.

And on and on it'll go.

Coolhand's billions and billions

The BC Liberal version of Carl Sagan. Every patch of dirt is worth billions and billions and after they're developed there's still never any money for things like combatting child poverty or raising welfare rates or keeping emergency wards open.

Instead its quickly on to the next "billions and billions" scam and the hope no one remembers your last promise.