Has Oliver even been to BC before? Hard to believe our federal minister could be so poorly informed and so biased against us.

Harper was weaned on big oil money when he came from Alberta; what do you really think the outcome of all this will be!?

Its probably time for Northern BC to be its own province as this whole issue will eventually show.

IMO I think Joe Oliver and Stephen Harper are preparing the ground for use of domestic terrorist laws to protect a corporate agenda… the slippery slope. Its a step in the direction of fascism to use the foreign boogyman excuse to shut down debate in pushing through a corporate agenda against the will of the people.

The real tragedy so far though, is that Canada still does not have a national energy policy of our own, and thus national energy insecurity because we allow the multinationals to determine Canadian energy policy. Gateway contributes nothing to a sustainable Canadian national energy policy.

If Alberta wants to sell oil, then we as a country should see it going East where 100% of the life cycle is contributing to the Canadian economy and is providing true Canadian national energy security and maximum jobs and infrastructure value.

It is completely insane that we want to endanger pristine BC headwaters, and the coast… so we can export oil to a country that has people put to death for voicing opinions like this against their government in their country… and meanwhile we will still import oil so as to enrich other countries that also have atrocious human rights records… all in the name of ‘ethical oil’… the Harper governments logic is as Orwilian as it gets IMO.

“Oliver obviously doesn’t understand the topography of the area that the pipe line will travel through. He comes from Toronto, Ontario were a snow capped mountain is something that you see in picture books.”

Spin indeed. Are we saying that BC’s topography is unique in the world and that no pipeline could ever cross such a territory? There are millions of miles of pipelines everywhere, and yes, even through the ‘challenging’ areas.

The media is clearly against the project. ‘Spin’ is certainly not limited to Joe Oliver.

Until someone can convince British Columbians there is something more in this for us besides the pawlty $115 million a year we stand to gain I can’t see anyone in this province supporting the pipeline, except those who are involved in some way, shape or form in the gas and oil industry.
I really believe the reaction of the people of BC to the HST will be comnparitively small compared to how people will react if this pipeline is shoved down our throats without the peoples consent. Our biggest voice in this will be the aboriginals and they will need everyones support who opposes this as they have said time and time again this isn’t about getting more money or jobs for them as to the reason they are protesting it.

There are not millions of miles of oil pipelines everywhere. It’s more like tens of thousands. Do these pipelines have dozens of spills everywhere in the world every year? Of course they do! Check just one record of spills – that of Enbridge!

B.C. is supposed to take ALL the risks and deal with the spills! Who pays for the clean-ups? And what does B.C. get out of the whole project? Next to zero!

Once the crude is loaded on the foreign tankers Enbridge is off the hook when an Exxon Valdez disaster happens in the Douglas Channel. It becomes the responsibility of the carrier which operates the tankers.

If the cost of an attempted clean-up is too great, the carrier will simply declare bankruptcy.

Guess who will pay? Us.

Lets just have a referendum on this project. That way only BC will have its say, not rich lobby groups on both sides. I think any British Columbian should be allowed to speak for or against,but I don’t want to hear what someone from another contry has to say. Can someone tell me if there have been any leaks or breaks in Trans mountain pipeline or the Southern crossing line? Both are located in BC.

This pipe line will happen despite any panel reviews we all know that. I will not support any oil company in Canada until they started supporting Canadians. We are the second largest producer next to Saudi Arabia yet were paying 1.20 a liter. I do not support this pipe line if it profits select corporate Canadians and foreign countries. I do not support this pipe line because of the dangers either however until we all stop driving cars then we need the resource.

It’s interesting how this how scenario has played out. When the project was first announced, governments repeatly touted the JRP process as the only way to resolve the issue fairly and legitamtely. Opponents were furious – they didn’t recognize the JRP as a legitimate process. Rather than boycott the process, opponents took the opposite route and flooded it. Now the government is backtracking, calling the JRP process flawed. Ultimately, no matter what the panel decides, Enbridge (and the Feds) will lose this one. There’s no question that support for the pipeline from the JRP would be challenged in Supreme Court. There’s no question that the spirit of Northern residents is mightier that the pocketbook of Enbridge shareholders.

One thing I will say, gas and oil companies have traditionally done a poor job of getting their good news stories out to the public.

So in the absence of that, the media has done the PR for them, and created fear in the public. And people have been eating it up with a spoon.

What fear would that be? The almost 1000 spills Enbridge has had in the last decade? I would suggest that is a legitimate fear we all should have if we want to keep BC beautiful. Obvioulsy for you a short term profit is more important than a longterm home. Go back to Alberta troll. They understand your kind there.

Transmountain pipeline leak April 2011 …
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/04/28/edmonton-trans-mountain-leak-fixed.html

Rainbow pipeline leak, May 2011
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/alberta/Rainbow+pipeline+leak+largest+years/4720888/story.html

Pipelines leak; sometimes a little, sometimes a lot; sometimes rarely, sometimes often. Sort of like hitting the lottery. But, throughout the world, you can be sure that the small, local leak payoff will come as well as the jackpot leak/spill a bit less often.

For those on here whi like to comment every now and then about silencing people because they use oil, or don’t vote or some other nonsensical reason, I happened along this post by someone who took a shot back at those notions:
———————————–
Using a computer does not cause oil spills.
Nothing I do compels oil companies to be careless or negligent.
Nothing I do compels government regulators to be corrupt.

I use oil products. Therefore, I have no right to criticize the oil industry.
Where is the logic?

If I write a letter, I have no right to criticize pulp mills?

If I eat spinach, I have no right to criticize agribusiness?

If I use MS Windows, I have no right to criticize Microsoft?

If I vote, I have no right to criticize the government?

If I go to a movie, I have no right to criticize the director?

Brilliant!

All you want is to silence dissent.

It works both ways gus. People don’t want to hear that they might be hypocritical, I understand that.

The anti-pipeline crowd wants to silence anyone in favour of the project and uses mis-information and hyperbole to get their point across. It is definitely a two way street.

The fact that Canadian Oil for the most part is owned by foreign Countries, is an interesting point.

We seem to forget that without these foreign Countries investing huge dollars into the Oil Sands, and other endeavours in Canada, we would all be living in mud huts on the Prairies.

Canada is a very huge Country, with huge resources, and a small population. We do not have enough Canadians with enough balls to invest in anything. We sit on our asses and complain about everything that happens, but generally we do nothing.

We allow the Government and local business to strip our resources, and we dont even know its happening. 80% of what we produce is sold to the Americans, yet we spend most of our time critizing the Americans.

Without the American markts over the years, we would all be destitute.

I dont really give a **chit** which way this oil goes, however it seems its OK to build pipelines to the East, or to the South, but not to the West. Its OK to have potential problems from Hudsons Bay, or the Saint Lawerence Seaway, or the American West Coast, but not BC;s coast.
Why is that? We want all the benefits but we do not want to take any of the risks.

Canada is a Country. Get it. This issue needs to be looked at in a sane and intelligent manner. If in fact the risks of a spill are to high, then other arrangements should be made.

The world will continue on with or without us. All resources will continue to be extracted until they are gone.

In my opinion Canadians need to get their s..t together. We cannot solve a simple problem like line ups at the emergency ward at the Regional Hospital. We cannot get our local Government to reduce costs. We cannot get the oil companies to give us lower prices on gas, even though we often pay the highest prices in Canada, and we have a refinery in our back yard.

We talk about tourism and set up a tourist bureau, when we dont have any tourists. We put in a hotel tax to tax people from the outlying areas, and call them tourists.

We cannot even put in a paving program that fixes our roads and gets rid of potholes.

And yet???? We seem to think that somehow we, the **litte people** of Prince George, can somehow stop the multi nationals from putting a pipeline through Northern BC to Kitimat.

I suggest if you want to stop this line, you better get off your asses and make some noise.

The HST referendum was won because people actually did something besides talk. The same applies to this issue. You have a number of Federal and Provincial Goverment representatives in this area. I am willing to bet that no one on these sites have had a serious discussion with their Government representatives about this issue.

Call Zimmerman, Call Harris, Call Bell, Bond, Rustad. Give the Mayor and Council hell for supporting this project by their silence.

Do something.

I may have missed it but could anyone please tell me why don’t we refine the oil in Canada there-by making it cleaner for shipment? Also Canada has a majority government so why don’t they ensure Canada has an energy policy? We are a great country and we need a pipeline to tie the east and west IMO.

The list of the 4300 intervenors are not all legitimatly concerned citizens. So thinking Harper wants to stifle opposition is out of line Ben. There are people from Brazil on that list that have know idea where Kitimat is or how their name got on the list. Butthead from New York, Flowers from the UK, etc. The intent of this is to clog the process and delay. Harper, and anyone with an ounce of common sense, can see the problem with this. Legitimate intervenors should most certainly be heard. But every tool with a computer should not.

So if dissenters can’t be out of country, then proponents shouldn’t be able to be from out of country. Whats good for the gooose……Are you telling me everyone who is FOR this pipeline is a Canadian citizen?

Read my post again But. I didn’t say out of country dissenters shouldn’t be on the list. But entities on the list must be legitimate, know the issues and location and know that their name is even on the list. This is outright obstruction spam in many cases. See the difference?

“We want all the benefits but we do not want to take any of the risks.”

It seems to me that oil was shipped via pipeline to the great lakes and then by tankers to Sarnia to be refined.

We are not getting that type of benefit here.

Sending oil east where the population is is a totally different story than sending it west and out of the country with no secondary processing in Canada.

Having refineries big enough to handle the increasing volume out of the oil sands would require five or six pipelines to handle the different products from the process. So to get the product to available markets would require multiples of five or six pipelines. So if we wanted to sell the finished product say to China we would be building lets say five pipelines instead of two.

Myself I wonder about selling off a valuable natural resource such as oil. In the US under the guise of environmental laws they restrict the development of oil reserves of which they have plenty. They have enough reserves of oil, gas and coal to be sufficient for a couple of hundred years or more. So to me it seems they are using everyone else’s resources while they hang onto theirs.

This pipeline will be built with the latest technology, much updated from the older pipelines. Where was the hoopla when Kinder Morgan just built a pipeline through Jasper. http://www.nacg.ca/project/kinder-morgan-pipeline-expansion-tmx-anchor-loop

As for the tanker, double hulled, two tugs in escort and expanded radar coverage. The Exxon Valdez was a single hull and here is a fact that is kept quiet. The US Coast Guard saw the Valdez go off course at the time and did not radio a warning as it was not in their mandate at the time.

One very important factor that opponents must understand is that the environment will be protected to the degree of which our economy and our people can sustain themselves. In other words a rich country can afford endless environmental protection options whereas a poor country must do what ever it takes to survive..regardless of the risks to the environment. Do not dismiss this reality.

Having said that, there are many ways to address the issue of who pays for cleanup long before the first barrel flows.
The feds can and should demand that a environmental deposit be given and held by whoever is responsible to clean the mess whether it be on land or offshore. The Feds could impose a restriction that meant that should spills be frequent or disasterous that the rights to the oil source itself be forfeited back to provincial or federal ownership. That would in effect balance the affordability of protection measures with the actual value of the oil itself.

People need to think very clearly about this development and what it means to Canada both short and longterm. Most people are preoccupied with saying no because of the environmental risks.
It is not so simple as that and all factors of social and economic issues are to be fully incorporated into this decision that will effect all these things for the life of the project as well as the resulting after effects which Canada will face. Just because Canada does not have a national energy policy doesn’t mean it can do what it wants for short term job creation at the expense of our national energy security.

What we have heard and seen so far is nothing more than a polarised lying contest and the truth and consequences have not been presented in a manner of which represents the importance of this decision to any Canadian one way or the other.

It was interesting to hear the Enbridge president talk in self congratulatory terms about the $1.5 billion that has been set aside in case of a major spill. Contrast that with the $21 billion that BP has already spent cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico, and you can see why Enbridge wants this pipeline so bad- they think they will have limited or no liability in case things go wrong. If in fact Enbridge had to pay a $21 billion bill, it would bankrupt them. Their total market capitalization is only $27 billion. We need a strong provincial government to ensure high standards of environmental protection. The Liberals are not that party.

How nice it must be to sit in a warm home, drink your Timmies and rail against all development from the comfort of your own computer.

No oil, no gas, no pipelines, no nuclear, no Site C…

No social services…

The choice is between smart and stupid development, not between development and no development. To paint all opposition to Enbridge as anti development is a typical Conservative trick meant to appeal to simple minds that see all issues as black and white.
It should be noted that the natives around Kitimat are very pro gas pipeline. There are 3 LNG pipelines being planned, and all have been received with open arms. Why? Because they do not threaten the long term destruction of the ecosystem and will benefit the people living there. Enbridge Northern Gateway doesn’t meet that simple criteria.

Why is there so much natural gas these days? Hydraulic Fracturing (or fracking), which the enviromental movement wants to stop as well.

I agree it is not totally a black and white issue, but the pendulum has swung a little too far to the ‘no development no matter what’ side of things.

foresight wrote: “a poor country must do what ever it takes to survive..regardless of the risks to the environment.”

All very relative, isn’t it?

How about looking relative to society and then relative to internation corporations.

Society as a whole has survived for tens of thousand of years. Based on the increase in human population, one could argue it has survived quite well.

Corporations? That’s another story. None have survived that long. Even the various religions have not survived that long. A few hundred years is about the oldest.

However, companies must also do whatever it takes to survive … regardless to the risks to the environment.

In fact, when the groups pushing to protect the environment become to large, the corporations cry foul. Not publicly. Behind closed doors, at power lunches, networking, etc. etc.

Make no mistake about it, Corporations complain just as much as those who use road blocks and other highly visible public protests. In fact, I would argue that they use much more effective methods. If they did not, the prime minister of this country and his fans would not be trying to shut down such protests.

On the other hand, have we seen the Harper Government try to stop corporate lobbiests? Of course not!