Northern Gateway Pipeline - going through ? or will protestors win?

[Serengeti Charters]

Originally Posted by rogo

So I'm confused.
If this water is so trecherous, why are there activists taking canoe trips and paddle boards through the main route ?

And has anyone seen the math on the risk factors ? Just curious.
My want to move north and pick up a job if this goes through.

Because canoes don't have a draft of nearly 100ft and a beam of 206ft like super tankers...

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

my opinion keep big oil out of our sensitive areas.

Which would be where, exactly?

[trophyboy]

The pipeline needs to be built. Canada needs the billions of dollars in economic strength. For all the greenies out there, it will not ruin the environment as the Canadian Oil and Gas Industry is the most heavily regulated industry on the planet. Put down your cup of Anti-Canadian Kool-Aid and support Canada not the Middle East. Furthermore, if you don't want it, practice what you preach, get on your fig leafs and eat you organic granola bars and go hard. Hypocrites!

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Which would be where, exactly?

the areas they have already laid waste to. we need a new bigger pipeline then pull out the old one put the new one back in the same place not to hard to figure out.upgrade not more should of done it right the first time.we cant eat oil.we cannot drink oil.we dont even really know how to clean it up. yet maybe if they spent half as much learning how to cleanup there messes as they do getting it out, this may not be an issue but they dont they just want profit. why are the pipelines in africa surface run, why are there gound level flare stacks. because they can get away with it if I look at a canadian drilling rig everybody in full ppe but in other part of the world guys in t shirts and runners on the lease if you can call it a lease. in the okovango delta a leaking pipeline was left for three months because shutting it down would harm production.same people want me to believe any thing they do is in our best intrest B/S. the rules we mandate in canada are there because we make it safe for our workforce this hurts the bottom line we should never forget this.and like I said sarnia ontario is a ghost town compared to what it can provide in the refinery way of things let see if the us will let us build a pipeline from alberta to sarnia thru there country not lightly.

[BeeGuy]

The Hecate Straight and nearby waters are no place for oil tankers.

Anyone who would put one there is blinded by either ignorance or greed.

[uglyelk]

Back in 79 I stopped eating the crab we caught off of the docks in Kitimat because we had a aluminium smelter and and a pulp and paper factory operating in the inlet. We also had a schit load of clear cut logging going on too. But they still have a great fishery too! WTF? decades of industry shipping and fishing on the same inlet....but some how alberta oil will spoil 60 years of industry and fishing?


The native folks in Kitimat village were more than happy to work at all the industrial operations in the inlet ...i guess they just like money like the rest of us. They did pretty good, government money, industrial money and fishing boat money.


We got all these folks ranting about big tankers passing up and down the coast. In the mean time exon runs them by at will. Alaska south is okay but BC west is not????

Yeah lets block canadian oil....we wouldn't want to get in the way of american vessels in our own waters????

How about we as a nation grow a set and tell every one to **** off.

Obamma...afraid of our dirty oil no problem...we will sell it to China.
Obamms ...your a greeniac we can tell don't want an enviromently unsound products...let us help you out....the energy newyork gets from quebec....dirty....they flooded the lad displaced the critters and first nation folks just to light NY for you....you wouldn't want that. we will flip the switch on friday and stop sending you this evil electricity as well.

Yes we know it might brig hard ship...but it's the right thing to do if your going to appease the green vote.

But hey if it gets too cold we got a schit load of seal pelts kicking around no one wants to buy...they are warm and water proof! Just what a president might need if you run out of energy in the cold season.

[braggadoe]

there are already existing pipelines that run from alberta to ports in Vancouver. if this pipeline is in our best interest, then it should be built beside/parallel to the existing pipeline.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

the areas they have already laid waste to.

You lost me at the "Lo, behold the evil they have wrought" part.

Get a job.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

You lost me at the "Lo, behold the evil they have wrought" part.

Get a job.

ha ha I will take that as humor .why, if you fall into the mold of our average oil patch worker you have you grade ten.willing to sacrafice you own education for personal monatery gain.so now after 50 years of oil industry reliance. we have a high drop out rate that feeds the patch with lots of dummys ,high payed dummys.I am not judging any one,just trying point out that that poor choices prevail in the oil industry,in the name of the mighty dollar.now I will address the point some one made on the goods being transported currently in the douglas channel.fill your sink with water now throw in a roll of tin foil and a magazine.not too difficult to clean up now get a tea spoon of olive oil. I think you will notice a distinct difference.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

.... we have a high drop out rate that feeds the patch with lots of dummys ,high payed dummys.I am not judging any one,...

Really? You could'a fooled me.

[Skybuster]

It amazes me that the difference of opinion causes such schoolyard responses. I’m a tool because I don’t believe Oil Tankers should traverse the Douglas channel. Get a grip. My opinion differs from yours. My approach also differs from yours. I try to back up my beliefs with knowledge and facts. I don’t resort to name calling as a defense.
Oil Spills have increased significantly in the last couple of years. 2010 and 2011 have seen 13 and 10 spills respectively. In the years prior they ranged from 1 to 5 spills depending on the year. Here’s a link to the the list of spills
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills
The increasing frequency concerns me. I believe it is due to increased oil activity and economic competition. The companies chasing the oil are looking for more and more ways to increase profit. This is usually done by lowering expenses. The Exxon Valdez spill has two indicators of this, first the size of the crew manning the Exxon Valdez was half of what it was in 1977. I’m sure automation can account for some of this, but the crew at the time of the spill were scheduled for 12 and 14 hour shifts, and then worked overtime above that. Tired crew make for sloppy work.
The second factor was the Raytheon collision Avoidance System, Radar. The Exxon Valdez had found there system was malfunctioning a year previous and determined it too expensive to fix. Had it been working it would have picked up the Bligh Reef warning reflectors and the skipper could have avoided the collision. The Radar on the Exxon Valdez was turned off.
Both of these are tied directly to operating costs and cut into profits. I don’t want mindsets like these controlling the movement of millions of barrels of Crude Oil down the Douglas Channel and out into Hecate Strait. The Douglas Channel is roughly 1/10th as wide as the passage the Exxon Valdez crashed in.
The impact of a spill is a very long time. In the case of Prince William Sound the Oil remains in the intertidal zone, affecting marine life even now, over 20 years later. The estimate is that the oil is breaking down on a 1-4% per year, with about a 5% chance of the 4% levels. It is estimated it will take close to one hundred years to break down the oil completely. Today much of the marine life in the whole of Prince William Sound has recovered, but those near the crash site are still highly decimated. Dolphins and Killer whales in the area still have about twice the annual death rate.
I could go on forever but the point is that Oil is very toxic and the effects of a spill lasts a very long time. Humans control the transport process and humans will have accidents. Profit driven humans will have a higher frequency of accidents. Don’t let them near the channel, or the Skeena watershed.

[Okotokian]

I'm not anti-big oil. I work in the industry, as does my son. I'd prefer that we get nice safe pipelines approved to run south so we didn't have to run tankers off the coast. KXL (and others) should go so Gateway doesn't have to. But if the Yanks don't want our oil, well then....

[fish gunner]

bravo target go on

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

I'm not anti-big oil. I work in the industry, as does my son. I'd prefer that we get nice safe pipelines approved to run south so we didn't have to run tankers off the coast. KXL (and others) should go so Gateway doesn't have to. But if the Yanks don't want our oil, well then....

There's already tankers running off the west coast, isn't there?

[BushmanOutdoors]

I can't stand this argument.

Yes. Reduced to the stereo types it is a battle between gr. 10 drop outs working on the rigs VS. tent-living no-shower granola crunchers. Neither side being able to spell, talk eloquently, or do any type of research into the matter.
But lets let them drown each other out.

And i'm not trying to convince someone that they are wrong in this post. Or to even change their stance or where they lay their support. My hope is to enlighten people that oppose the project to how poorly they have any understanding on SRD, GDP, future planning, or environmental concerns.


But on a level with perspective and objectivity some interesting facts and reasonable debates come into light. For example.

Naturalist, Hikers, Indians in the wilderness would come across bitumen in large amounts sitting in pool.
It was also naturally sitting on the banks of the Athabasca River. Presumably killing fish etc. The point ?
The earth produces this bitumen and to say that a spill killing birds and fish is complete grounded in a lack of research as to how the ecosystem of the earth actually works. Bitumen is on the ground and killing animals long before humans started manipulating it.
Worried about birds ? How many birds do the windmails kill every year? How about cars ? Did you know the highest killer of non commercially hunted animals ?

Earlier Jayhead posted concerns regarding the chinook and fishing. Did you know commercial fishing takes 93% of the fish ? If you are truly concerned about the fish population, why not look at where the major subtractors to the population lay. Right now there is a case in the supreme court about Native fishermen fishing the fraser river at the very low points of the population cycle subsequently causing an equivalent damage of have 75% of the salmon spawning rivers cut off. Let me say that again, the natives were killing the salmon at an equivalent of cutting off 75%. Morice river, Bulkley Parrot Creek. Now one would say that it is their right to use the salmon to feed their people and for cerimonial rights and I absolutely agree; however they were selling it commercially hence the court getting involved. Do research into what is actually threatening the salmon population.

Transporting energy.
The activist have taken an major offence and stance against pipelines.
Things they dont take into account - the anger against enbridge is completely without perspective.
Are you against the pipeline ? Let me enlighten you.
Enbridge isn't pulling the product out of the ground. suncor et al is.
So now the oil is out of the ground and needs transportation and you(activist) have protested the option (pipeline) that leaves the smallest carbon foot print and has the smallest incident rate.
Let me explain.
By protesting the pipeline you have now forced suncor et al to find alternative means of transportation. They are already being up fleets of trucks. Now the human error is increased, the traffic accidents are increased, the carbon foot print is increased, the rate of killing animals on the road is increased, and instead of relying on technology from this era, you have 1956 Kenworths to trust.
Great move.
You've also started the process to by pass the pipeline and use the rail way. Again, great move.

What Jayhead and the likes don't factor in is DMADV or DFSS. Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve Control.

If you take the exponential factors of 10 activist using a vehicle, they all have a better chance of dying in a car crash at the same time, than an pipeline spill that releases less than 60 barrels.
Feel free to run the numbers.

So to summarize, dont think about what you are protesting based on fact doctored up by the peer reviewed(?) Wild Salmon economy,
or dont protest based on the fact that a pipeline may come within 2 meters a river. Look at something with perspective and i'm sure might find a different upshot.

Dont bother enbridge, work with them.

[Rocky7]

Good post.

That's what I've always said about bitumen traces in northern rivers. If you don't like it, complain to Him. He put it there!

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

There's already tankers running off the west coast, isn't there?

Absolutely. I'd rather not see more if alternative routes for our oil can be found.

[Serengeti Charters]

Bushman, many are pushing for reductions in Native fishing as well as commercial and they have had to reduce their catches over the past 10 years by quite a large portion due to keeping the runs sustainable. There is a huge difference between that and an oil spill however, an oil spill in hecate strait would wipe out many runs of salmon, full runs to individual rivers could be wiped out...commercials target various runs for the most part and if it is found that they are catching over a certain percentage of a certain run, they are shut down...can you shut down the oil as fish swim into it? No, you can't. As for the native's selling fish, don't even get me started...almost anyone I know who is against the pipeline is also against this and report it and try to stop it at any chance they get.

Just because there are other threats to salmon, does not mean that we should add another one. However, these other threats are regulated (not ideally obviously), can the oil once it's in the ocean be regulated? No. The stocks are strained enough. Especially one that would affect much more than just salmon, but a whole ecosystem.

[BushmanOutdoors]

"could be wiped out..."

You are exactly right. They could be wiped out. But what is more likely to happen.

My point is that your "what if" scenarios aren't being contrasted to "what is" actually happening.

WHAT IF - an oil spill in hecate strait would wipe out many runs of salmon
WHAT IF - an earth quake opened up and bitumen spilled into the river
WHAT IF - " insert what if scenario here. *remember* no looking at facts"

WHAT IS happening is legal and illegal commercial fishing by Indians and private companies is making a massive impact on the fish runs.
WHAT IS - happening is that you and your company are dependent on the very hand that you are trying to bite.



But first lets do a little audit on Serengeti Charters shall we? shoot one over Ms. Heather's Bow ?

Your company, with 2 vessels, boasting not one but two 250 hp engines surely do not run on gas, do they ? And two engines is essential. No carbon footprint and you are a carbon neutral company right ? (pipelines are) I would also venture to guess that you've read the study by UBC that did a biochemical study on the effects of boat exhaust and oil seepage into the water has had a significant impact on alevins survival rate.
Or, your river boat designed with a flat bottom has never disrupted the salmon spawning beds.

I'll keep going - the electronics that are accessorizing your boats are all shipped here via tankers that contain more petroleum than you can imagine yet when a tanker comes here with something you want/need for your business its ok ? What about the risk factors of those tankers ? Or the water quality in vancouver.

One last suggestion - if this NGP goes through there will be a significant increase in cash flow and spending cash in the pockets of people in nothern BC. I suggest as a business owner you try and align yourself with the economic spill over affect that massive projects like this have on small business owners like yourself.

Do your self and your company a favor and align yourself with something that is sustainable and based on actual numbers.

I'll give you something here, jump on board with this project and increase your business rev, or be completely against it by boycotting everything that has to do with what you and your friends are protesting.


PS. Stop harassing the whales on your whale watching tour. can you teach a whale to not swim into a propellor ?

[Serengeti Charters]

While I appreciate your business advice, somethings are more important than making money (this coming from a Commerce concentrating in Finance major). The what if scenarios are in fact yes, what if, but the chance that it could happen and the devastation it would have on the coast is much larger than that of any of the "what is" scenarios you described. That risk is just too high. Pipeline spills are not as rare as you would like many to believe, you enjoy research so I'm sure you know this.

As for the tankers to which the products I use are coming in on, they're also not arriving or leaving from an area that is as dangerous for tankers to navigate as that of Hecate Strait and Douglas Channel. If the NGP was going to a larger port with easier accessibility I would be much more comfortable with it. You're completely ignoring this fact.

As for the engines, two engines is essential for a charter operator due to safety...I surely wouldn't want to be on a boat with one engine and have a problem and be stuck in a storm...or even stuck with only a 9.9 kicker. You're attempt to imply that we are hypocritical for running on gas is absurd, if I could realistically run on something else that was better for the environment I would, that is such a desperate attempt to keep the attention away from the environmental hazards of the pipeline and tanker traffic. There are no viable alternatives to running these types of engines, but there are alternatives to the NGP.

I'm not anti oil, I'm a Conservative that understands economics well as well as business, but there must be a point where you draw a line where the importance of making money is below that of ensuring the coast is still as beautiful for my children as it is now.

[Rocky7]

Ideologies seem to bend, depending on whose ox is being gored; especially on the left/green side.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Ideologies seem to bend, depending on whose ox is being gored; especially on the left/green side.

LOL I notice the same thing when we discuss paid hunting and landowner rights. We have a forum full of socialists. LOL

[Rocky7]

I did say "especially"

[BushmanOutdoors]

@Jayhead

"but the chance that it could happen " - what are the chances. please list them according to the routes, ecosystems, technology being implemented, recovery efforts (dont know do you)

"devastation it would have on the coast is much larger" - what are they with exact examples of scenarios from the ROW, tech specs and recovery efforts.( dont know do you)

"leaving from an area that is as dangerous for tankers" - how many tankers per day already use that passage way? what is their incident rate ? what technology will the new tankers have to circumvent that? how many boats will be escorting the tankers in and out ? (dont know do you)


"There are no viable alternatives to running these types of engines" - 1. There are. They cost more than you can afford. So you yourself have put a "price" on the environment due to your economical situation.


"there must be a point where you draw a line where the importance of making money is below that of ensuring the coast is still as beautiful for my children as it is now" - agreed. And we found yours, the cost of the Hydrogen fuel cell in a boat was a little over 200K. You drew the conclusion that it wasn't economically viable, so are others.


So at the end of the day, let it go and enjoy the business.

[The Elkster]

Originally Posted by Serengeti Charters

While I appreciate your business advice, somethings are more important than making money (this coming from a Commerce concentrating in Finance major). The what if scenarios are in fact yes, what if, but the chance that it could happen and the devastation it would have on the coast is much larger than that of any of the "what is" scenarios you described. That risk is just too high. Pipeline spills are not as rare as you would like many to believe, you enjoy research so I'm sure you know this.

As for the tankers to which the products I use are coming in on, they're also not arriving or leaving from an area that is as dangerous for tankers to navigate as that of Hecate Strait and Douglas Channel. If the NGP was going to a larger port with easier accessibility I would be much more comfortable with it. You're completely ignoring this fact.

As for the engines, two engines is essential for a charter operator due to safety...I surely wouldn't want to be on a boat with one engine and have a problem and be stuck in a storm...or even stuck with only a 9.9 kicker. You're attempt to imply that we are hypocritical for running on gas is absurd, if I could realistically run on something else that was better for the environment I would, that is such a desperate attempt to keep the attention away from the environmental hazards of the pipeline and tanker traffic. There are no viable alternatives to running these types of engines, but there are alternatives to the NGP.

I'm not anti oil, I'm a Conservative that understands economics well as well as business, but there must be a point where you draw a line where the importance of making money is below that of ensuring the coast is still as beautiful for my children as it is now.

To play devils advocate...would that opinion change if it meant paying $2.50 per liter for gas. There is a full cycle unsubsidized cost to consider in all of this whether its an alternative energy or another much more expensive option for conventional fuel.

[braggadoe]

50+ posts and no one has come up with one good reason why this pipeline should go through in the proposed route? just a lot of name calling, pretty sad.

bushmanoutdoors has some excellent points. all of which are why the proposed route should not be used. wild salmon/steelhead are already being hit hard enough. why take the risk and hit them harder?

some would say that it's important to get this pipeline out to the coast. ok., then build it along/parallel the existing lines down to vancouver.


the only reason for the proposed route is that it's the shortest/cheapest. typical of a large oil company.

i'm not anti oil, but sometimes we have to stand up against stupid ideas. this is a bad idea(the proposed route)

[The Elkster]

Perhaps we should make an accountability rule. If a place like the lower mainland uses 80% of the energy for the province then they have to house 80% of the infrastructure, refining and transport for that product. I think that`d be fair. California would hate that! All that preaching would look pretty dumb when their consumption is put in the spotlight.

[Serengeti Charters]

Actually these fuel cells are not yet viable alternatives due to the fact that fuel cells for boats are only 6.5kW each (approx. 8.6HP) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell) so in order to get up to 500HP that is needed to run our boat, it is unfeasible to have that many fuel cells due to space and weight constraints.

As for the devastation it would cause, you don't know that answer either, stop pretending like you know it all, it just makes you seem arrogant. However, we can use an example of the Exxon Valdez which occurred not too far away...marine wildlife was devastated and fisheries destroyed, one must note that tourism and sport and commercial fishing in BC contributes over $5billion per year to the Canadian economy. That'd go down the drain.

Also, no tankers go in and out of this area, as there is and has been a tanker moratorium for the area since 1972...(didn't know that did ya). This is due to the fact that the possibility of an oil spill is too great due to the topography of the area and weather.

[Serengeti Charters]

Originally Posted by The Elkster

To play devils advocate...would that opinion change if it meant paying $2.50 per liter for gas. There is a full cycle unsubsidized cost to consider in all of this whether its an alternative energy or another much more expensive option for conventional fuel.

No, as that cost would just be passed onto the customer as in any business model...so it'd be bad for our guests if anything, and any guests of charters as they'd have to pass the cost onto their guests as well.

[The Elkster]

Originally Posted by Serengeti Charters

No, as that cost would just be passed onto the customer as in any business model...so it'd be bad for our guests if anything, and any guests of charters as they'd have to pass the cost onto their guests as well.

Hmmm thats interesting cause any time I`ve seen a cost come along that was going to have to be passed along to customers (possibly leading to lost customers) it was generally fought against tooth and nail by the service industry. I mean that money will come straight out of your customers buying power eh. I know if I have to spend 50% more on a base trip my tips and extra`s will be greatly curtailed if I do the trip at all. Ultimately that is money straight out of your pocket and I think you know that We all have to shoulder some of the burden the question is how do we divy up that burden.