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

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by GustavMahler

.. I abhor when people associate my posts with "Conspiracy Theory",,, people conspire all the time and there are theories but the combination of the words has become an euphimism suggesting crackpot science. Though I'm not sure I read the context of your post correctly.

No, that was not intended. I didn't mean that you were advancing a tinfoil hat theory; just that you read the Keystone opposition wrong.

BTW, we're not discussing "spin" here. Neither are we discussing what citizens do with their own country. I think you know that and you are deflecting the foreign NGO meddling issue by drawing analogies that are purposefully dissimilar.

ps: I did mean that one.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by sjd

There are 4,500 intervenors for Gateway - of which 4,000 are Canadians, a good chunk of them from along the pipeline right of way.

http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/weekly...eway-minister/

State TV is probably THE worst place to get information.

Did they mention that one of the appearances at these hearings - to discuss routing of the pipeline - is by a class of elementary schoolchildren?

I guess some think we have evolved to the stage where complex engineering projects are child's play.

[Zulu9er]

Originally Posted by Serengeti Charters

rocky7 has never been on douglas channel or hecate strait obviously, or even looked at a marine chart and the path these super tankers with over 100ft drafts and 200ft beams must pass by. As if you took a look, then factored in weather conditions, you'd know it's not even 95% safe.

I'm ok with it,, as long as its NOT and Italian Captain running the ship

[Gust]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Don't bother. I don't read charts or tide tables. It is enough for me that others can and that those others have had years of input into this decision.

I think it has to do with the fact that there is a port that was built for something altogether different but it required no thought, no brainer as most cons say. From the port out to sea the logistics are with the carrier. I don't really give a crap about the point A to point B over land, it's this side of the diameter of the pointA to the the other safe water side of the point A that is the concern. Do I have faith in engineers? yes,, do I have faith in engineers discussing waterways? no! Do I care if they are maxxed to the teeth in PHd's on tides -of which I know many-,, nope,, it's a dumb exit point.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Zulu9er

I'm ok with it,, as long as its NOT and Italian Captain running the ship

That is hard to argue with.

Actually, I understand they are not going to let tankers come and go without an escort of tugs and those will be connected with cables. I believe even an Italian captain could be manhandled, if necessary.

ps: I don't want to see any "refugees" getting off the boats, either!

[unclebuck]

It is all about the MONEY!!!!!!!!! Just ask our indigenous peoples. Offer them money, and everything WILL HAPPEN when it comes to crossing "their land".

[greylynx]

Conspiracy. I love conspiracy.

http://fairquestions.typepad.com/ret...roduction.html

[braggadoe]

vancouver all ready has a port, there is already a pipeline feeding it. building this one next to the existing one, seems to make the most sense. with one area already at risk, why put two at risk for no reason?

the school children spoke at the hearing because even a child knows this is a bad route.

[Rocky7]

Looks like this "environmental review" Gong Show is going to get a new boss. It will be nice to put this embarrassment behind us.


OTTAWA - The federal natural resources minister is about to hit fast-forward on efforts to speed up environmental reviews of major mining, energy, and other economic development projects.

"Obviously we're talking here about an urgent matter dealing with the timeliness of the regulatory process, so we consider this a priority matter and we're going to get on with it," said Joe Oliver in Toronto Friday.

His comments come on the heels of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's announcement to the World Economic Forum in Switzerland that he'll make it a "national priority" to develop the capacity to export Canadian energy products to Asia.

That's just what the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal to connect Alberta's oilsands to a northern B.C. tanker terminal is meant to do.

But hearings on that project have been bogged down by thousands of presenters signed up to take part, prompting Oliver to accuse environmentalists and "radicals" of hijacking the process.

Oliver couldn't say how soon changes would come, but he did say they'd be wide-ranging.

"This will be an initiative that will involve legislation as well as regulation."

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews...27-180811.html

[Skybuster]

Originally Posted by JB_AOL

Not sure I follow...
What is a "final decision"?
Why would they make any "FINAL decisions" before it was approved?

My point is that the most sensitive aspects of the pipeline are where the intersect waterways. Rocky has presented a plethora of experts that have analyzed the best routes to the coast and have selected this one. Yet the "final decision" on how these particularly sensitive crosssings will be executed is left open. My belief is that it will be economics that will determine how appropriate these crossings are adressed. Not a super safe engineered, environmentally sound crossing will be made. Once the approvals are in place they will be much more likely to cut corners.

Having said all that I am not so worried about the pipeline itself. It is the tanker traffic in Douglas Channel that concerns me.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Skybuster

My belief is that it will be economics that will determine how appropriate these crossings are adressed.

Your belief is wrong. There will be directions from fisheries, environment, hydrologists, engineers, etc. etc. etc. and a lot of guys who have done lots of this and know what they're doing.

But if you're looking for ironclad guarantees (on this or anything else), you're in the wrong dimension. Those don't exist here.

[hal53]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Your belief is wrong. There will be directions from fisheries, environment, hydrologists, engineers, etc. etc. etc. and a lot of guys who have done lots of this and know what they're doing.

But if you're looking for ironclad guarantees (on this or anything else), you're in the wrong dimension. Those don't exist here.

Kind of funny with all the "experts" opinions.... sad thing is I just got back from the States, chatted with my neighbor the night before last and he was stunned when I said we are going to build a line to the coast to sell it.....he could not believe that we wouldn't wait until after the election there to go ahead with the Keystone line.. when I said "we might as well sell it directly to the Asia market instead of you guys borrowing money from them to buy it from us"....he huffed and went home....LOL

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by hal53

...I just got back from the States, chatted with my neighbor the night before last and he was stunned when I said we are going to build a line to the coast to sell it.....he could not believe that we wouldn't wait until after the election there to go ahead with the Keystone line.. when I said "we might as well sell it directly to the Asia market instead of you guys borrowing money from them to buy it from us"....he huffed and went home....LOL

'Yer a mean hombre. Definitely sounds like someone from Killam!

I don't want to see us rely only on the U.S. They are, or are becoming, an unreliable trade partner. Anyway, it is never good to have only one customer for anything.

My crystal ball isn't any better than anyone else's, but I'd guess that after an outlet to the Pacific is in place and after the 'mericans (god bless 'em!) finally figure out we've got more recoverable oil than Saudi Arabia, our friends in the B.C. Interior won't get hassled so much about stumpage and farmers who use Milk River water won't, either. We're going to be - and appear to be - a lot more independent and a lot more important. And, if my dream ever comes true, our new Republic will be truly something to behold. But I digress....

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Your belief is wrong. There will be directions from fisheries, environment, hydrologists, engineers, etc. etc. etc. and a lot of guys who have done lots of this and know what they're doing.
.

Sorry. Not the way it works Rocky. A risk analysis drives the decision. The most risk free method is rarely selected. It's often too costly. That's not to say it's a crapshoot. It's not. Safety is important. Regulations are adhered to. But probabilities are taken into account, weighed, costed, and the "optimum" route or option is selected. If you think it's the absolute safest you are dreaming.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Sorry. Not the way it works Rocky. A risk analysis drives the decision. The most risk free method is rarely selected. It's often too costly. That's not to say it's a crapshoot. It's not. Safety is important. Regulations are adhered to. But probabilities are taken into account, weighed, costed, and the "optimum" route or option is selected. If you think it's the absolute safest you are dreaming.

Sorry. I never said that. I was responding to an assertion that "economics will drive the decision". It won't. Of course, it will be part of pile of considerations. It will not, however, trump everything else.

Maybe you should read the post I responded to? You might even read all of my post while you're at it.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Your belief is wrong. There will be directions from fisheries, environment, hydrologists, engineers, etc. etc. etc. and a lot of guys who have done lots of this and know what they're doing.

But if you're looking for ironclad guarantees (on this or anything else), you're in the wrong dimension. Those don't exist here.

the titanic had lots of experts working that fail safe theory, worked like a hot dam till my pal murphy came knocking .

[pogo]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Sorry. Not the way it works Rocky. A risk analysis drives the decision. The most risk free method is rarely selected. It's often too costly. That's not to say it's a crapshoot. It's not. Safety is important. Regulations are adhered to. But probabilities are taken into account, weighed, costed, and the "optimum" route or option is selected. If you think it's the absolute safest you are dreaming.

And who does the risk analysis? Have the engineers ever engineered anything that didn't eventually sucumb to the forces of mother nature? Even they know they can't. The honest ones will tell you.

Don't listen to them. They are the "organ grinder's monkey's".

[pogo]

One little reason I do not support Gateway. This is just a few miles off the track.

[braggadoe]

this is my reason i don't like the route.

[glen d.]

What about jobs. One must have employment to eat.

The Transcanada pipelines to eastern Canada are down in capacity .. like 60%.

Predictions are the USA will cut back exporting gas to the tune of 60% or more in the future.

It is just a matter of time and jobs will have to be cut, no market , no profit, no jobs.

One must remember that we supposely live in a capitalist system, thats what we are, we are not socialist.... supposely?

So these products we have in Alberta have to get out somehow.

I would also be considering a route to the South out of Alberta to the West coast of the USA where they would love to have the jobs and other spin off revenues.

[fish gunner]

I dont see any posts in this thread looking to limit canadas ability to export oil /gas.what I do read is the general thought that the douglas channel as a poor choice for a major tanker route.many have stated run the line beside the existing line to vancouver to me this seen like a no brainr.my own opinion build new refinerys in alberta and produce a finished product,increasing the financial benefits to canada.why threaten our north west coast.because it is cost effective, iam sure there are many alternate routes in the books,this is just the cheapest to put thru.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

I dont see any posts in this thread looking to limit canadas ability to export oil /gas.

Canada has no oil. Alberta has oil. Saskatchewan has oil. Not Canada.

It's in the constitution; you might want to peruse that sometime. Maybe right after you get some facts on the N.G. Pipeline?

If Canada tries to control Alberta resources again, there will be trouble.

[fish gunner]

if you can find canadas constitution you have some good resources. that kinda sucks for alberta and sask they are landlocked and will have to use canadas coast line and waters to move there resources off shore.and all the folks that feel there province is not part of canada are more than welcome to leave we are a dominion if I am not mistaken.

[DuckBrat]

Here is what I know,

I was born in Alberta.

Lived here all my life.

Love what the province has for landscape, wilderness, and wildlife.

Agree we need oil to survive in our current world yes.

Do not agree with the unsustainable extraction of oil resources.

Personally I practice strategies for lower dependance on the oil economy.

Definitely do not like brash/brute actions of oil companies/MLA's/certain posters on this forum pushing our economic beliefs onto other provinces.

Trying to force a pipeline through narrow valleys, where the line itself in some locations would be meters from the Skeena River and Kitimat River.

Know there are pipeline leaks occurring all the time, how many was that in Alberta over the last 12 months?

Agree that engineers work hard for their title but realize they are far from perfect. Ego tends to cloud their judgement.

Salmon/Steelhead and pristine waters have provided a sustainable earning for the people of the region.

I would trust the word of a Coastal resident on the issue of tanker traffic and safe passage over that of someone out of central alberta.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by DuckBrat

Here is what I know,

I was born in Alberta.

Lived here all my life.

Love what the province has for landscape, wilderness, and wildlife.

Agree we need oil to survive in our current world yes.

Do not agree with the unsustainable extraction of oil resources.

Personally I practice strategies for lower dependance on the oil economy.

Definitely do not like brash/brute actions of oil companies/MLA's/certain posters on this forum pushing our economic beliefs onto other provinces.

Trying to force a pipeline through narrow valleys, where the line itself in some locations would be meters from the Skeena River and Kitimat River.

Know there are pipeline leaks occurring all the time, how many was that in Alberta over the last 12 months?

Agree that engineers work hard for their title but realize they are far from perfect. Ego tends to cloud their judgement.

Salmon/Steelhead and pristine waters have provided a sustainable earning for the people of the region.

I would trust the word of a Coastal resident on the issue of tanker traffic and safe passage over that of someone out of central alberta.

thank you for the intellectual and reasonable post. having lived in the area for a portion of my life, it would be a crime to see it lost to convenience &greed. you are correct it is difficult for those who have not experienced the beautiful northwestern coast to understand the ramifications of one accident.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

if you can find canadas constitution you have some good resources.

You sound like you can find information on pipeline engineering and marine hazards, but you can't find the BNA Act. Pretty funny.

that kinda sucks for alberta and sask they are landlocked and will have to use canadas coast line and waters to move there resources off shore.

I expect Montana and North Dakota would accommodate us, alright.

.. all the folks that feel there province is not part of canada are more than welcome to leave we are a dominion if I am not mistaken.

Well, we'll just see how that all pans out, won't we?

I've noticed how liberals, especially liberals with eastern roots and their useful idiots here in Alberta, have no problem yammering on about how Alberta oil belongs to Canada. How come I never hear that Ontario hydro belongs to Canada? Same goes for gold. We don't have any. Ontario has lots. How come we don't get a share of the yellow stuff?

I guess you see something special about a "black" resource....or maybe it's just that Alberta's wealth is there for the taking by our betters?

[Gust]

Actually, years ago Alberta asked Ottawa/Feds to help exploit this resource of abundance all over this young province. The feds balked as they thought it was to high a risk to bolster this empty province of yokels. So most of the money that created Alberta came from Oklahoma.

That's what my beef with NEP is/was,,, once the risk proved fruitful and everyone forgot that this Province wasn't a created wealth via Ottawa, all of a sudden papers were drafted to vampyre the resource.

And that's a great point on Ontario Hydro and gold,,, it's the same as B.C forestry,,, and talk about the U.S fudging that resource thru the softwood lumber deal/tarif, wow, where was Ottawa on that one,,, I wonder about the feds,,, I'd really like it if we could see both their off shore accounts and holding company portfolios to see really how their decisions are made.

12 years ago I had a case against the TD Bank and though every lawyer said my case would be an obvious win,, no lawyer or judge could address it without bias for td, as every lawyer and judge have portfolios through td. no lawyer would take my retainer but they also told me td would fight me by draining my account with endless defense arguements and then win.

[fish gunner]

come now no need for name calling ,the bna is not canadas constitution sorry, we have a constitution but good luck in finding a copy. there is a very good chance the power running your home is from bc, oh except the americans bought the rights to the columbia basin oops,and at no point have I not given more than one canadian solution for albertas oil. maybe bc can rent alberta land to the coast,damage deposit,%of total earnings,clean up costs and rehabilation should a miracle spill occur,see I for one read history books and find a time when alberata was a poor have not province one of those famous busts of ours at which time canada done what it could do to help. I sir had to take an oath of allegiance to become a canadian at no time have I been asked to do the same for any province.see the border to the south is the canadian border not the alberta border look on a globe you will see canada in big bold letters and the provinces in slighly smaller text any who feel otherwise can kindly move to the nearest international border.

[Gust]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

\ very good chance the power running your home is from bc,
No, the major substations that B.C hydro have their interests in are in Oregon, Calfornia still buys most of it's electric from B.C
oh except the americans bought the rights to the columbia basin oops,
No, under Nafta lite, because water is used to produce electricity it was worked that we have no ownership of our water,, thank mulroney for that
and at no point have I not given more than one canadian solution for albertas oil.
I don't understand this statement,, is there a problem with the oil that we have overlooked???
maybe bc can rent alberta land to the coast,damage deposit,%of total earnings,clean up costs and rehabilation should a miracle spill occur?
of course
see I for one read history books and find a time when alberata was a poor have not province one of those famous busts of ours at which time canada done what it could do to help.
not on the oil front
I sir had to take an oath of allegiance to become a canadian at no time have I been asked to do the same for any province.see the border to the south is the canadian border not the alberta border look on a globe you will see canada in big bold letters and the provinces in slighly smaller text any who feel otherwise can kindly move to the nearest international border.
Why would I, I'm a canuck from Alberta

Were you here in the 80's? and if you were'nt, why not?

[Gust]

and alberta has paid it's dues a thousand times over through transfer payments even if you adjust to inflation.

but please answer my question,,,, were you here in the 80's? if the answer is no, why not?

what makes alberta so appealing now?

but back to the thread. you don't honestly think that alberta or ngateway can anex the land of another province,,, and so what if natives ask for a chunk of change??? you would too, as would i and every sane person on this forum, left or right.