[OFFENSIVE CHARACTERIZATION AIMED AT REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

good god, if we'd had this outlook nothing would ever had been built at all in this province...no railways, no dams, no powerlines,etc etc

rafe you ask the question what will be do if natives protest?: we will throw their ass in jail if they break the law ( our law...not some made up on the fly native law ) or ignore injunctions

wonder how rafe gets out of bed in the morning if everything is a 'certainty' like he espouses. how do you drive a car if its a certainty you'll get into an accident one day...?? how do you fly in a plane if its a certainty it will crash sooner or later...?

the article is the usual drivel that rafe has descended into...complete garbage and I cant beleive I wasted 2 minutes reading it

Oil

[ALLUSION TO VIOLENCE REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

If we wanted a messed up coastline, we could just drop the moratorium on offshore drilling.

SHELL OIL?

A shell game non the less. Look over here at the natives, while we change the laws, and pick the pockets of the rich immigrants. There is no real contraversey only misdirection. His Highness Harper will insure that the pipeline will be built and the tankers will sale and he can buy yet another election.

"Consultation" for this

"Consultation" for this Conservative Harper government means : "Shut up and bugger off! Our Chinese communist brothers need our capitalist oil to rule the world !!"

Ed Deak.

clean up of spills

Raif talked of other spills not cleaned up but seems to be against the biggest environmental remediation project of all time. The tar sands. If that was in the ground on a lot in Vancouver it would be hauled away and cleaned up but because someone is making a buck off it we shouldn't clean it up. WE have all seen old gas station lots dug up and hauled away.

Govt hypocracy

So while we are mired in an ever growing "carbon tax", because Gordon Cambell wants a legacy, we are told to conserve power...so we can export it south for mor profit. We are willing to accept the fact that the tarsands and oil industry are the biggest causes of green house gases, and give them tax breaks,
but at the same time hold citzens hostage for the small amount we create...I CALL HYPOCRACY...AND AN END TO THE CARBON TAX IN BC

@ devilsadvocate I'm sure you

@ devilsadvocate I'm sure you are aware of how offensive and racist your comment is but I'd just like to thank you for writing it. It's awesome that you expose yourself as it just lets people know how racist this 'country' is. Keep on writing!

And I'd like to remind you that Canada is 144 years old. That's yesterday. You want 'throw up on the fly laws,' you got em. As long as they're made by Eurocentric and for Eurocentric gain, they're considered to be legitimate. The ignorance is astounding. You live in an imaginary country constructed on genocide, rape and horror. You can either keep living in your fantasy or wake up and join reality.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt and banana republic ain't just a store at your local shopping mall.

To the moderator

Please don't remove devilsadvocate's comment

They really must think we are all crazy.

We have oil. Resources are owned by the people who inhabit this land. Someone wants a pipe line through B.C. to send it to China. The risks are to B.C., not to China, not to the province from which it comes, not to those who profit from this venture and not even to all of B.C. . The oil is sold to those who make great obscene profits by selling it back to us in other forms including gas.

Now if I did that with anything I could find on my few acres of land, people would say, I was insane. If I did that and caused others to absorb the risk, people (the others) would ask, "Do you think we are all insane?

That is what is happening here. All the risk is absorbed by the regions the line will run through and the coast of B.C. Even some part of B.C wouldn't know if the whole rest of the province was soaked in oil for the sake of a few temporary jobs, nor would they even care.

New Flash to the Enbridge people and to their naive supporters. We, up here in the area impacted by a possible spill, are all not stupid.

I agee evb.

Now that I wasted 5 sec. reading it.

We should stop talking about

We should stop talking about "risk."

Dictionary Definitions:
risk/risk/
Noun:
A situation involving exposure to danger: "flouting the law was too much of a risk".
Verb:
Expose (someone or something valued) to danger, harm, or loss: "he risked his life to save his dog".
Synonyms:
noun. hazard - peril - jeopardy - danger - venture - chance
verb. hazard - venture - jeopardize - adventure - chance

As Rafe rightly points out, there is CERTAINTY that there will be adverse consequences of this pipeline and tanker traffic. The only uncertainties are: when? and How much damage? And, most important of all, what value do we place on that damage? Those who have to live with the damage -- over generations -- place a different value on it than stock holders and voters who live elsewhere.

If the local stakeholders are to be given the opportunity for "compensation," the amounts should be determined by the local stakeholders -- NOT the companies, the elected officials from elsewhere. etc.

Gird up your loins folks the barricades are coming for this one

Pipeline ruptures and tanker spills are a certainty, no question. In every other part of the world where there are pipelines and tanker traffic we have witnessed tragedies of this nature.

Now with the remote wilderness of certain parts of this pipeline proposal does anyone think that;

a)These will be reported by the company?

b) Who will attend the remote are with equipment to clean up?

Remember this is a federal government that cannot even find the time and wherewithal to visit Attawapiskat and that is a relatively easy task compared to where this pipeline is to be located.

But there are other certainties that I can see ahead:

Directly due to the fact that there are still many people in this country with the mindset of poster devil’s advocate, this makes violent conflict over this a certainty. Let us see Enbridge protect itself in the remoteness of that region.

They want a war they can have one.It is not a question of “if” but it is a question of “when.”

Big oil funding enbridge protests

Read that pembina has been financed to stop enbridge so that Canada can only sell oil to the USA and not export it by ship. That way they get all the oil. http://www.vicnews.com/opinion/135100478.html?mobile=true

Secession as an option

If this disaster gets crammed down our collective throats I think as citizens of BC we need to give secession as a political option a serious thought.

This pipeline should be viewed as an outright attack on not only the people of BC's democratic rights but a physical attack on the very life systems of this province. If the Feds and Corps want to push people into a corner, Rafe is right, people will push back, hard. I'll be right there with my fellow citizens.

I've been involved with the Cascadia movement for the past 5 years and it has done nothing but grow rapidly since I've joined. People know the system is broken, so we need a reboot. We need ecological economics based in reality not the fraudulent destructive abstraction that is neo-classical economics. It should become apparent to everyone that if this pipeline goes through the people in power have just decided to drop the veneer of Democracy, we are dealing with Authoritarianism. We need to start fresh, build something better, like how wildfire burns away an old dead forest that has been doing nothing but choking the new life below. We need start anew.

The most peaceful thing we can do, is split, then deny them the right as a sovereign nation. Anything less than secession we bred violence and discontent.

www.cascadianow.org

pianosaurus rex

So, people would rather waste their energy fighting about something that may or may not happen than spend that energy ensuring that the projects are done to the strictest of standards.

Every day pipelines pipe and tankers sail with few if any problems certainly not major ones. As most disasters that occurred in the past have usually been avoidable there is absolutely no reason to believe that they are inevitable.

Standing in the way of these projects is simply displaying a defeatist attitude that will come back to haunt people worse than having any oil spill.

Oh, and enough time has been spent catering to the whims of FNs. A deadline should be set whereas there is 1 year for all treaties to be resolved any band that hasn't signed should forfeit the right. By doing this every party to the treaties would then be able to move on with life

SNERT has it exactly wrong.

SNERT has it exactly wrong. There is every reason to believe that "accidents" are inevitable. Equally true is that the FN will suffer the impacts most directly. Justice would demand that THEY decide how much they need to be compensated --today and in the future -- for the inevitable damage they will suffer. Otherwise, no project.

(My own view is that the price is too high for all of us, FN and other, but that view is clearly a minority one.)

pianosaurus rx

"Every day pipelines pipe and tankers sail with few if any problems certainly not major ones. As most disasters that occurred in the past have usually been avoidable there is absolutely no reason to believe that they are inevitable"

Really? It this kind of head in the sand attituted big oil wants to see.
Like Rafe says...its a certainty, and in on of the most pristine coastal environments in the world.

There wil be no ral benefit to the people of BC in this one. A few maintenance jobs, and a couple port jobs. Not me or you, nor will we see any real difference in the BC economy.
The reality is the only thing ou will see its higher gas prices at the pump.
Ivwe said it before...its Chinese investers backing the pipeline from Chinese owned oil sands...any other questions?

SNERT Two Words

Kalamazoo River.

Sockeye

This pipeline should be viewed as an outright attack on not only the people of BC's democratic rights but a physical attack on the very life systems of this province

If this disaster gets crammed down our collective throats I think as citizens of BC we need to give secession as a political option a serious thought.

Agreed.

We do not have leadership under our system, we have followership. Harper follows commands from the plutocrats, not the people. His views on matters align with theirs as he bombastically sees himself as a 'Big Man' rather than their useful puppet.

I believe it is high time we turned the fascist approach to democracy upon itself:

...sometimes before you can bring about democratic change you have to remove the obstacle to democratic change ... ~ Richard Perle, Advisor, US Department of Defense

Our form of political representation is that obstacle to democracy. Since the government refuses to allow democracy to grow then the secession-revolution is nobody's fault but its own.

The probability of Inevitabilty

...is a function of time. Repeat anything often enough and their will be failure.

Things that cannot go on forever, don't.

Golden rule revealed!

If there was no money to be made, there would be no issue here!

This is just one more enterprise, where unfortunately for the investors, there actually is some construction involved (as compared to the more regular ponzi-schemes.)

As usual they have con-men travelling to every place where opposition may happen , with instructions to do whatever it takes to soothe the "hotheads".

Our glorious media gets its share of such coin, and as a result spouts about all the jobs that will be created, no matter how temporary they may be.

So, as in any situation where a decision needs to be made, the best way to reach a conclusion is to remove financial considerations from the equation --- in which case this project has no merits whatsoever!

oil

We have enough oil in this country to meet all our needs yet we ship half our production out of the country. We make up for that loss by buying expensively from outside. All that could be changed by supplying ourselves first, not buying from others, nor shipping to others. There would be no discussion about tankers. Fuel would be cheaper and a few of the wealthy would be less so and there would be more jobs.

We need a war project for renewable and sustainable energy

We don't need or even want to be digging up the Tar Sands. It is in nobody's interest to do so, regardless if they inherited the entire world in the process.

But we know who is to blame, who is getting in the way of sanity.

I cannot believe people vote and support this criminal cartel doing business behind the facade of a democratic state. Have we all gone completely fcuking insane?

Enbridge Atrmpts to Hoodwink British Columbia

I see the fishfarm lobbyist has weighed in, what a fool you are.

http://powellriverpersuader.blogspot.com/2011/12/enbridge-attempts-to-hoodwink-british.html

@ woodworker

Please don't provide us with a link to a column written by someone who has been shilling for Enbridge since the beginning and where the paper that pays him for his columns gets advertising from the same company. It isn't credible.

From Wikipedia/part I

Spills and violations

Using data from Enbridge's own reports, the Polaris Institute calculated that 804 spills occurred on Enbridge pipelines between 1999 and 2010. These spills released approximately 168,645 barrels (26,812.4 m3) of hydrocarbons into the environment.[9]

On July 4, 2002 an Enbridge pipeline ruptured in a marsh near the town of Cohasset, Minnesota in Itasca County, spilling 6,000 barrels (950 m3) of crude oil. In an attempt to keep the oil from contaminating the Mississippi River, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources set a controlled burn that lasted for 1 day and created a smoke plume about 1-mile (1.6 km) high and 5 miles (8.0 km) long.[10]

In 2006, there were 67 reportable spills totaling 5,663 barrels (900.3 m3) on Enbridge's energy and transportation and distribution system; in 2007, there were 65 reportable spills totaling 13,777 barrels (2,190.4 m3) [11]

On March 18, 2006, approximately 613 barrels (97.5 m3) of crude oil were released when a pump failed at Enbridge's Willmar terminal in Saskatchewan.[12] According to Enbridge, roughly half the oil was recovered, the remainder contributing to 'off-site' impacts.

On January 1, 2007 an Enbridge pipeline that runs from Superior, Wisconsin to near Whitewater, Wisconsin cracked open and spilled ~50,000 US gallons (190 m3) of crude oil onto farmland and into a drainage ditch.[13] The same pipeline was struck by construction crews on February 2, 2007, in Rusk County, Wisconsin, spilling ~126,000 US gallons (480 m3) of crude. Some of the oil filled a hole more than 20 feet (6.1 m) deep and was reported to have contaminated the local water table.[14]

In April 2007, roughly 6,227 barrels (990.0 m3) of crude oil spilled into a field downstream of an Enbridge pumping station near Glenavon, Saskatchewan. Long-term site remediation is being attempted to bring the site to "as close as possible to its original condition".[12]

In 2009, Enbridge Energy Partners, a US affiliate of Enbridge Inc., agreed to pay $1.1 million to settle a lawsuit brought against the company by the state of Wisconsin for 545 environmental violations.[15] In a news release from Wisconsin's Department of Justice, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said "...the incidents of violation were numerous and widespread, and resulted in impacts to the streams and wetlands throughout the various watersheds."[16] The violations were incurred while building portions of the company's Southern Access pipeline, a ~$2.1 billion project to transport crude from the oil sands region in Alberta to Chicago.

Part III

In January 2009 an Enbridge pipeline leaked about 4,000 barrels (640 m3) of oil southeast of Fort McMurray at the company's Cheecham Terminal tank farm. It was reported in the Edmonton Journal that most of the spilled oil was contained within berms, but that about 1% of the oil, about 40 barrels (6.4 m3), sprayed into the air and coated nearby snow and trees.[17]

April 2010 an Enbridge pipeline ruptured spilling more than 1500 litres of oil in Virden, Manitoba, which leaked into the Boghill Creek which eventually connects to the Assiniboine River.[18]

July 2010, a leaking pipeline spilled an estimated 843,444 US gallons (3,192.78 m3) of crude oil into Talmadge Creek leading to the Kalamazoo River in southwest Michigan on Monday, July 26.[19][20]

On September 9, 2010, a rupture on Enbridge's Line 6A pipeline near Romeoville, Illinois released an estimate 6,100 barrels (970 m3) of oil into the surrounding area

Too far down that road

"The probability of Inevitabilty
...is a function of time. Repeat anything often enough and their will be failure."

This is nonsense. It is a belief, and a dangerous one, along with 'nobody is perfect', etc. Do you realise that this is a poison in our minds that some people have carefully injected, so that we will not think we are anybody? This is why our lives are ruled by 'experts' and 'helpers' of all kinds. We can so do things right, and go on doing it, if we want to hard enough. This is the whole ball of wax. We will take the next step in evolution, only when we truly believe that there is no such thing as an accident. Do I claim to never screw up? No, but when I do, I don't call it 'fate' or 'just my luck', or 'murphy's law'. I call it what it is - my screw-up. The thinking here will do exactly what someone already said: prevent us from keeping the focus where it should be, namely on the standards to be applied for these enterepneurs to be allowed to do their thing.

Dorothy

What? This company has a history of spilling oil and negligence.

Why are they coming to Kitimat?

...because that's the very cheapest way. But IF there's a pipeline to the West coast, Prince Rupert is better if you want to avoid tanker spills - there's even a terminal there. Kitimat is a recipe for disaster like BC Ferries on the Inside Passage.

Either Prince Rupert or Kitimat...

...it goes through and over all the same valleys and sensitive areas. Issues are the same. To go to Prince Rupert almost the entire Skeena River would be vulnerable.

The Harper Government has it "under control"....

"The Canadian military is keeping a watch on aboriginal groups through an intelligence unit that is meant to protect the Forces and the Department of National Defence from espionage, terrorists and saboteurs."

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27067

Gitxsan treaty Derrick is a phony scammer

Canada`s media is corrupt and most should have their creditation revoked for deliberate fraud

http://www.terracedaily.ca/show9101a/IS_IT_TRUE_ELMER_DERRICK_IS_THE_GITXSAN_HEREDITARY_CHIEF

Environmental review

An engineer friend once told me he has never seen an environmental review, federal or provincial, stop any project. I guess the Taseko 'Prosperity' mine is a first, but I would not count on too many more of those.

The Harper regime is determined to put a stake through the heart through the Liberal vision of an industrialized future for this country. We will become miners of bitumen, cutters of wood and eventually suppliers of water. Resource extraction with very little value-added processing will be the new paradigm.

Enbridge in action claening up the Kalamazoo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlnri_scklA&feature=player_embedded#!

Enbridge`s shame, Enbridge`s cover up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gXaYZVGw44&feature=player_embedded

Sockeye - One word - So?

I never said disasters haven't happened.

Rafe Mair objects again from the south

I am not entirely sold on the pipeline to Kitimat, and it is the responsibility of the First Nations to object as it passes through their land. However, the tanker issue going back to the Exxon catastrophe does not mean there will be another one. There have been tankers going into Kitimat for the last 25+ years and ocean ships for the last 50 years. All are piloted with out incident.
The ships can be restricted fromt he port if not properly built (double hulled etc) so the probability of another catastrophe in the Douglass Channel is very low.
Stop the scare tactics Mair like the tactics that you used to stir up the lower mainland to object to Kemano Completion Project encouraging the government at the time to bow to uniformed political pressure to cancel that project even without reading their own government report that defined the environmental benefits as outweighing any negative impacts.
So report the news, inform with facts (current and relevant) and stop inciting the people of Vancouver to protest when those protesting haven't a clue about BC beyond Hope.
Be a journalist and present the facts.

dorothy, what are you smoking?

Are you suggesting that if you take something with a possible risk of failure, and you repeat it ad infinitum that failure will not occur?

Unbelievable.

Snort off!

Only idiots would endorse criminal cover ups and crimes against humanity

Profits, not people, drive this one

Simply the cheapest and most expedient routes available, and be damned the opponents, be they environmentalists, first nations or anyone concerned about their homes, they really don't count in the big energy picture, and if we need to compensate or move them, so be it, that cost can be minimized.

No different from previous first nations displacement or more current projects like the Chinese 3 Gorges dam or similar such projects in India, except that only thousands need to be dispossessed, instead of millions.

These projects will affect our First Nations more than, although not exclusively, nearly anyone else in the B.C. north.

This puts those folks in the front lines of this confrontation, legal, financial, verbal, physical, communal, moral and spiritual.

Much like front line workers, such as nurses, teachers, social workers, combat soldiers, etc. these deal with the up front, day to day realities, while paper pushers and bean counters work comfortably in their "climate controlled" offices.

Mr. Harper, et al, should be made to hike the entire pipeline route in summer (the part I saw was really tough), even with helicopter support, before any decisions are made.

I hope that the financial desperation of some first nations doesn't make them concede on this relativally minimal financial benefit, oh so tempting, the possibilities.

Residency rules for workers would be nice, but trade rules don't permit such, perhaps to further put rest to the lie of more than temporary jobs. A few terminal and security positions, but little else.

Skywalker is correct, no fancy tunnels here, just following the vulnerable river valleys for pipeline passage over at least 1/3 of the route. Spills here are catastrophic, let alone along tanker routes.

Odd to discuss the likelyhood of a near inevitability in the context of a profit first organization.

Sockeye, secession is a tempting notion but most BCers wouldn't go for it. Furthermore, the punishment would be much harsher than just blockading the laying of pipelines. And don't forget that western separatism is mostly a redneck Alberta concept.

As First Nations your treaties are with the "Crown" That goes

above the Canadian Government and you can deal with the Queen, appeal to the Honour of the Crown, although I don't think the richest women in the world has any honour you do have the last legal option.
RR

Go for it...as long as the grass grows and the sun sets!

The association between the Canadian Crown and Aboriginal peoples of Canada stretches back to the first interactions between North American indigenous peoples and European colonialists and, over centuries of interface, treaties were established concerning the monarch and aboriginal tribes. Canada's First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples now have a unique relationship with the reigning monarch and, like the Māori and the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand,[1] generally view the affiliation as being not between them and the ever-changing Cabinet, but instead with the continuous Crown of Canada, as embodied in the reigning sovereign.[2] These agreements with the Crown are administered by Canadian Aboriginal law and overseen by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.[3][4

@skywalker

Just as credible as the Tyee. I read this mainly for a laugh at what the lefties are arueing for. Never seen such a bunch of misinformed people anywhere. I read the right and the left and balance the two. The far right gives me some good laughs too.

getting back to Rafe's point ...

which is that he sees this issue progressing towards violence.

It's a given that any and all environmental reviews, impact studies, etc. will provide a green light for this project, that the Harper gov't wants it badly and will enact any laws necessary to make it legal and that corporate oil will provide all the smoke and mirrors necessary to convince us of its need.

What then? Civil disobedience seems the only action available to citizens if this project is to be stopped.

pipeline and who is opposed

All I ever hear and read is two totally opposed sides, but never any solutions. I believe we need to build the pipeline and export our oil, the country needs the money to help maintain our standard of living, it is just that simple. ( how much of my tax dollars go to support First Nations already, are they ready to bight the hand that feeds them ) What really bugs me is there will be an environmental disaster, that is also a given. But now for a possible solution, Why can we not force Enbridge and any tanker company to post an environmental bond. Something in the amount of 20 billion dollars, to be established before the first drop of oil is sent through the pipe. Also why not enact legislation under the Canada Shipping act, all tankers are escorted by two powerful escort tugs the entire route they travell (This is what the US government did after the Exxon Valdes disaster in Prince William Sound). If there is so much money to be made from the oil, at least make it more expensive for anyone involved in exporting it to be able to carry out there business. Take the risk out of shipping the oil, have resources available before any accident happens and make sure the entire force of the law is applied to any executive in charge if they screw up. Then we will see if they really want to go through with this.

Alberta is running over $3billion dollar deficit

The Tarsand prosperity is a myth.

Alberta is going backwards, royalties have been slashed to the point of deficits...

http://powellriverpersuader.blogspot.com/2011/11/enbridge-prosperity-myth.html

Exactly!

"What? This company has a history of spilling oil and negligence."

OK, so why are we not in the business of reading them the riot act on doing it right instead of trading philosophies among ourselves? Surely you don't imagine that this pipeline will not be built?

About risk and probability

"Are you suggesting that if you take something with a possible risk of failure, and you repeat it ad infinitum that failure will not occur?"

I am claiming, not suggesting, that it doesn't need to occur. Doing a practical job is not a game of chance, or it shouldn't and needn't be. I am sure you know people who have sat behind a wheel moving through traffic a number of times you could fairly call' ad infinitum', and some of these people have never had an accident. You can do defensive driving and prevail, if you're serious enough about the job. Just like you can everything else. All 'failures' are human failures. Some of them we can chalk up to experience, as we didn't know the job in advance, but such failures will eventually be eliminated one by one. We certainly know now that you cannot trust a supertanker to someone who doesn't know the waters he navigates through (Exxon Waldez), and we also know we cannot build an underwater (or any)oilwell with only half the number of stabilization rings that were prescribed in the specifications (BP). So, we only have to learn such things once, and then we can write better rules. Why not focus on that? It is now that the company wishes for our good will and no hassle, so this is the time to stipulate the standards we need to have in place. If we concentrate all our energy on saying no, and we do not prevail, then we have missed that window, and that's just plain dumb.

really, Dorothy?

i"I am claiming, not suggesting, that it (i.e., an oil spill) doesn't need to occur."

I need not read any further. You completely ignore the weather factoring in as a risk above and beyond good sailing.

Surely you don't imagine that this pipeline will not be built?

80% of British Columbians are against this, First Nations are against this, what do you think?

If this disaster gets built its an affront to open society.

pipeline

Rafe,you should know that the crown MUST consult with our first nations. However they are not required to accomadate and first nations do not have any veto power. I also don't think that 80% of British Columbians are against this project. As with most debate the majority is mostly silent.

Andrew Nikiforuk on Coop Radio 102.7fm

Andrew Nikiforuk is on Coop Radio in Vancouver today, December 14th @7pm. His interview will be archived @ coopradio.org

Bucketbrigade

If you have evidence of this please feel free to involve law enforcement. Or, is this just hot air?

igbymac

As you choose to ignore the fact that tankers sail the ocean every day in all weather without incident. Boy, talk about selective vision.

Shit does happens but it can usually be avoided and sticking one's butt high in the air so they can shove their head further into the sand does nothing to help.

I'll say again, there's nothing wrong with concern for the environment. It's just when it get's misdirected that a problem exists.

Don't stop the pipeline just do everything possible to make sure it's done right. Further, quit wasting time on obstruction and spend it more wisely on identifying just what right is.

Harper's Crowd "Control"

According to Harper it's a done deal. He has signed a deal with the Israelis to train our police on crowd control just like the Americans. The Israelis of course, are experts and their human rights violations are legendary. We will get to see all the new American crowd control weapons like the sound canons unveiled at the G20, the laser weapons unveiled recently in the UK and likely the new microwave weapon which has yet to be introduced publicly. Rafe is correct, we are about to see the true face of unfettered Capitalism and it isn't pretty.

snert,

Your point goes to the heart of the matter -- arrogantly, us humans can overcome and dominate nature in any circumstance.

Three is no risk too big that we cannot overcome with just a little 'American know-how'.

No doubt Japan building nuclear reactors while situated on a fault-line is a good idea, too.

Rafe, nigel bankes is partly

Rafe, nigel bankes is partly correct - govt and enbridge need to consult, but they alo need to accomodate the aboriginal interests regarding the proposed development - and one of those interests is to practice their aboriginal rights (hunting, fishing, clean environment, etc.) - its hard to see how they can do that unless they can guarantee that there won't be a spill (or buy off the aboriginal groups to compensate them when they destroy their aboriginal rights)

igbymac

If you only keep looking in the rear view mirror sooner or later you will run into something you should have seen if you were looking forward. It's a variation of the old 'those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it' thingy.

There's usually more than one thread in history and more than one path to the future. The trick is to balance them out. In this instance the balanced approach, which should be carried out, is not happening.

The approach being take by those opposed to this project is about the equivalent of the proponents just connecting up a series of fire hoses instead of using pipe.

What's to gain from shipping Tar Sands product

to China? or America?

Who gains but the corporate monopolies?

Who loses? What's at stake?

Ask yourself a few basic questions before rattling off.

re storms on coast and super tankers

I recall Cape Scot's light house was 150 feet above the sea but
still was wiped out by a winter wave. Now does anyone really think super tankers would be safe?

elmer kabush

Do you have a link for that event?

igbymac

Jobs, good paying ones at that. Now, would you be coming out against those?

Yes, I am against THOSE jobs

and I am even more against the exportation of jobs, in principle. Canada is simple a resource farmer on the global stage, providing the means necessary to sustain the economic machine. We cut it down or dig it up and, like all farmers, get screwed in the process.

Aside from that fact, the tar sands is one resource that should remain in the ground. Instead, a war-like effort to rebuild our infrastructure and provide clean, renewable and sustainable energy would provide far more jobs.