But I thought bc was coming around according to enbridge? Maybe if the company and federal government didn’t treat us like we are all complete idiots, a meaningful discussion could be undertaken. It seems like a resounding answer so far that communities that can be directly impacted are opposing this. Unlike pg that just hopes for some spin off jobs.

People aren’t interested in discussing safety or alternatives. They just want to dig their heels in and say ‘no’ with their hands cupped over their ears, so what do you expect?

I wonder if Coleman is going to scold them too? I really think that this government does not realize that we are tired of being told what to do and how to think.

Come on people, this is not about stopping investment and jobs, its about what we as BC get put of this as we take all the risk. In the end the oil is from alberta and they get the money.Will they share this with BC not.But they are willing to apply pressure on BC to except.We are users of oil but this is about feeding china not Canada. Its about exports and money end of story. The pipeline will travel through some vast wilderness is it worth thr risk, the pipeline will leak and we will have spills on land and water some point in the first 30 years,the effects will be ever lasting. There are billions at stake here so the pressure is on,

Yeah, that’s true, JohnnyBelt. ‘Alternatives’ to the kind of inflation the construction of Enbridge would certainly bring, and ‘safety’ to the purchasing power of our incomes and savings if it ever goes ahead.

But that’s the kind of discussion we’re NEVER going to hear.

It’ll be just the same old hoopla about all those jobs, and spin off benefits from increased economic activity, and nary a peep about the rise in prices that’ll be with us long after the pipeline is finished and the jobs are gone.

You’d think by now SOME of our politicians would start to wake up, and recognise there’s a difference between inflation and prosperity. But whether they’re Left, Right or Center, none of them do. That’s the REAL issue with any proposed mega-projects, for if they can’t increase the overall long term standard of living faster than they’ll increase the general cost of living, where’s the benefit?

Let’s not be too hard on johnnybelt. I would believe him if he told us he cannot think beyond what’s good for his bank account. I would believe him explicitly.

JohnnyBelt: Discussing ‘safety’ with Enbridge? Look at the spills they’ve had and the way they’ve tried to cover them up and the way they try to wiggle out of being held responsible for them. I, for one, really don’t want to hear that about a spill in our wilderness.

So why should the technical side of the project be discussed. I am sure the project will be built so the discussion should be about routing, operation and mitigation efforts.

Notice it is said no increase in tanker traffic, not stopping it. Haida Gwaii and places like Hartley Bay do not want to loose their fuel supply. A bit of a double standard.

Johnnybelt:”People aren’t interested in discussing safety or alternatives.”

Actually, ALL the presentations about safety and the environment, since NOBODY can guarantee a 100% safe, zero spills, zero contamination of the environment operation!

Even Enbridge admits that it cannot give that guarantee, only that it would construct the pipeline to the highest standards known today! ALL pipelines nowadays must adhere to these standards, but inspite of all that technology spills are occurring regularly, often with devastating results!

After the thing is in place we all pray for No earthquakes, NO landslides, NO rockslides, NO washouts…and NO welding seams splitting apart!

That settles that aspect of it!

Now to your request for alternatives.

Please take a few minutes and let everyone know WHAT the alternatives are which, as you claim, they refuse to discuss.

?

One alternative is to run the pipeline from Alberta to the neighbouring USA, avoiding B.C. and its rough mountainous terrain and sensitive coastline altogether!

One thing comes to my mind: Exxon Valdez.

helloooooo there is -already- a tarsands pipeline running though our watershed. Take a valium and google “Anchor Loop Pipeline” In operation for over 3 years now and despite over 125 creek crossings in national and provincial parks and exporting raw bitumen by tankers in Vancouver, the world has managed to keep on turning, the salmon are fine and no massive spills have occurred. The only difference is we see -zero- benefits and continue to whine about how the Lower Mainland gets everything while our roads crumble and our schools get shut down. Also, Kinder Morgan is american. Enbridge is Canadian.

It is ironic that Kinder Morgan is supporting the radical environmental groups opposing this pipeline so they can continue their tarsands export expansion plans (http://www.kindermorgan.com/business/canada/TMX_Documentation/default.cfm)

You people whine that americans dominate our oil industry. Then give a Canadian company a break. Do something to help yourselves and your communities.

Thank you everyone for proving my point.

Except for maybe gamblor.

Here’s a similar pipeline for those who want to educate themselves. For the rest of you, keep those blinders on!

http://www.alyeska-pipe.com/pipelinefacts.html

How does running this pipeline to the US make a difference? By the way its oil sands not tar sands. Tar is a man made product. Zealous greenies like the word tar thinking that sounds evil.

The use of “tar” was intentional.

And there is no difference. That was the point I was trying to make. That there is already a pipeline of this nature in operation in our watershed. The difference is the existing pipeline was built with hardly any fanfare. Why? because it heads south – to more business-friendly locales. Everyone from Valemount to Kamloops to Vancouver has already decided that they are fine with a “tarsands” pipeline and crude tankers.

Kinder Morgan is actively recruiting customers to engage in the expansion of the existing pipeline. Meaning that if Enbridge fails, the oil (and money) will simply flow south like it already does. We get nothing and we solve nothing because tar still gets exported off our coast. Oh, wait we do get something – 100kms of pipeline alone the Fraser River and the risk that goes with that but no rewards. And the whole world will see that northern BC is a business nightmare and shy away from any kind of larger project.

Furthermore, the oilsands is the only oil market where Canadian companies have a foothold (Suncor, Syncrude, CNRL, Encana, Husky, etc.) The accusation of US interference is a very valid one. Give your country a chance.

So where’s all the environmental hate mail? I was expecting my post to receive a tidal wave of vitriol from the earth muffins. I think their flimsy arguments just drowned in a sea of “tar”.

Let’s see, how many barrels of oil, gas or whatever we will see from the Enbridge pipe line. Not one single barrel for the people of BC or Canada.
Canada imports 33% of its oil from off shore now, how about guaranteeing a Canadian supply instead of allowing the Chinese to take the product and when as what happened with the coal in the north east they suddenly don’t need or want that product, either we take what they offer as we did at Tumbler Ridge or we shut it all down as we had to in Tumbler Ridge.
Don’t try and sell us on the idea of a continued supply of oil for this region if Enbridge goes through, unless of course we are going to buy the product back from the Chinese. Are you suggesting that we really are that stupid?

Yeah, let’s close the borders and stop all trade immediately. Brilliant!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2XwYWz-bCw&feature=related

Go away Enbridge.
Now if the Video showed good results then it would be another story. But it seems these jackasses don’t give a crap about anyone.

Johnnybelt:”Yeah, let’s close the borders and stop all trade immediately. Brilliant!”

Yes, that’s the way to go! You are right! Let’s stop ALL trade immediately, if not sooner!

ALL trade! The whole works! BRILLIANT indeed!

IAOOH!

I agree that exporting any form of energy says Canadians are so incredibly unimaginative that when gifted with virtually unlimited sources of energy, we can think of nothing better to do with that energy than give it away to people who know what to do with it.

Nevertheless, BC residents have already decided that exporting oil through their province and off their coast is just fine. The only decision left to make is weather the north wants their share of the action. The risks are already here. The dark side of me thinks it would be poetic justice if tomorrow a crude spill off the south coast drifted up and poisoned the north coast. Just to prove my point.

I’d also like to point out Pembina’s pipeline that carries crude through the Pine Pass through PG and on to Kamloops. We have 100’s of kms of crude oil pipelines already installed in our area and the sky is not falling.

What people should be demanding is that this pipeline be built to the most stringent standards possible. Demand excellence. Make it get done right.

Unfortunately, the Protest Generation of the 60’s is now nearing retirement age and we now have throngs of well-heeled, financially independent people who raped the environment all their lives to earn a living and now choose to beggar their children by protesting for sport.

The american tar pipeline went in without a peep. The Canadian one has generated a media hell-storm. CBC ran 2 measly stories about Anchor Loop – AFTER it was approved. WTF??? The CBC should be charged with treason. Here’s a nice quote from one of those articles:

Roy Howard, an environmentalist who lives near Mount Robson, said the pipeline itself is the least of his concerns.

“Oil is probably going to move along that corridor whether it goes by truck, train or pipeline. Pipeline may actually be more secure,” said Howard.

“The bigger issue is whether we should be exporting all this oil or digging it up out of the ground.”

Full article here http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/04/22/bc-robson-pipeline-expansion.html

Here’s the skinny on this pipeline. Only Alberta or American Shareholders can get anything out of this. Only BC can suffer not if but when anything goes wrong. They profit, we pay. Any questions now, Johhnybelt and any other fools?

Pembina pipeline!

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/eemp/incidents/earlier/pembina_00.htm

Other!

http://www.wetsuweten.com/files/WCEL_enbridgedownriver.pdf

The current government can’t see past Mr. Harpers nose. Canadians need a national energy policy wherby Canadians can purchase fuel at Canadian prices and what is left can be sold on the world market. Oil needs to be refined in Canada then it can be shipped as gasoline, diesel, or what ever other product can be derived from Bunker C oil. This would ensure more employment in Canada and that the average Canadian will have more disposable income as he/she would not be paying world prices for fuel.

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.[8]

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.[9]

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) [10]

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.[11] 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.[12] 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.[13]

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”.[11]

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.[14] 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.”[15] 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.

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.[16]

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.[17]

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.[18][19] A United States Environmental Protection Agency update of the Kalamazoo River spill concluded the pipeline rupture “caused the largest inland oil spill in Midwest history” and reported the cost of the cleanup at $36.7 million (US) as of November 14, 2011.[18]

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.[18][20]
[edit] Environmental initiatives

Good comment Western2

“Here’s the skinny on this pipeline. Only Alberta or American Shareholders can get anything out of this. Only BC can suffer not if but when anything goes wrong. They profit, we pay. Any questions now, Johhnybelt and any other fools?”

This pipeline is good for one thing and one thing only.

BC Liberals support of the not going to happen pipeline has sealed their fate of being wiped off the map and being reduced to third party status..

Can`t wait for the election, BC Liberals are done!

People in Canada cannot see past Mr. Harpers nose. They can’t see that we need a National Energy Policy to give Canadians the oportunity to pay made in Canada oil prices. There is ample oil left for sale to the world at world prices. Oil should be refined in the country of its origin, in this case it is Canada. This would provide refining jobs for our own people and a cleaner product to ship to the world economy lessening the chance of a catistroffic oil spill. It is a proven fact that Raw Buncker C Oil is harder to clean up than refined oil product.

gamblor: “What people should be demanding is that this pipeline be built to the most stringent standards possible. Demand excellence. Make it get done right.”

“Unfortunately, the Protest Generation of the 60’s is now nearing retirement age and we now have throngs of well-heeled, financially independent people who raped the environment all their lives to earn a living and now choose to beggar their children by protesting for sport. “

Bang on. Couldn’t agree more.

So Johnny Belt and Gambler I have some questions for you two since you seem to advocate the project.

What is it that makes you truly support this project specifically?

What do you think is the beneficial logic to the project for Canadians? Not just paying world prices surely? The inflation costs of our own domestic energy supply surely factors into your equations somewhere? You are smart people are you not? Do you see any agreements that protect Canadians from world market instability rates, corporate profiteering on a fear basis, rather than an actual cost basis?

Yes we have Husky refinery here in town. We welcome them so much as an example of how far we will bend, and we announce it to the world by having their refinery locates a mere 2km from the downtown sharing the same bowl of air-shed. We love seeing their expansion here in PG because we are convinced that the more they produce in downtown PG the better deal we will get on an essential supply here in the North and the further along we are for downtown revitalization (ask the mayor)… we’re hoping to get our gas at less than a 120% of what the rest of the country is paying.

Husky has a good gig in that they get real oil from the BC Peace where the costs are stable with no real relation to world turmoil other than through financial markets. They ship the oil over the Rocky’s to downtown PG via the Pembina line yes, not tar oil mind you, but none the less oil has reached the downtown PG refinery in the Central Interior. Lots is refined here in town, but PG’s dividend is to pay the highest prices anywhere Husky refined fuel goes… even 800km away to the coast.

This refinery can easily meet our supply needs here in the north, but there is no break in their price. However many companies still get their fuel from Alberta and elsewhere cheaper.

Husky creates some jobs here in PG, but there is no energy cost advantage to it being here… as soon as a pipeline is bombed in Nigeria our price goes up 10%, a war in the Middle East and our forest industry has to shut down because the cost of fuel get ridiculous. We pay windfall profits every time something bad happens in this world even though it has nothing to do with our domestic costs and we pay this windfall profit today before they open North American Markets up to the world markets pricing.

What do you have to say about that, wheres the benefit?

Don’t you think we need a national energy policy here in Canada? I guarantee you that Harper will once he gets his neocon war on Iran and the world market price of fuel crushes the Eastern Canadian economies… no matter how much Harper prints more dollars taxing us all to prop the Canadian economy up by bailing out bankers… the price of oil is elastic and Harpernomics is the politics of an oil based economy.

Most people in Northern BC are well aware that this is a pipeline to export energy and not to increase domestic supply… if anything it is to hitch our costs to the oil barons growing international demand price… kind of like trying to buy a home in Vancouver, some just get left behind.

So yes we all understand there would be jobs and maybe a thousand or more, some of these jobs may even go to local people for a few years, and we may have a hundred jobs last 30-years… but all the financial gain goes to others far away and all the devastating risk is local.

Gateway is not Canadian owned, only Enbridge the pipeline builder is. Huge difference between the two, just so you understand. Its about foreign interest exporting a Canadian resource to maximize profits spurning domestic inflation that picks winners and losers. Its not about utilizing a national energy resource to create value and increased quality for Canadians.

So the best argument I can gather from Gambler is that we should support it because occupied Vancouver supports a Alberta pipeline to their already compromised environment where they have hovercrafts, and coast guard, and millions of eyeballs watching, and ready to respond… so because Vancouver is willing to take oil for export when Washington is busy gauging their locals… because of that BC should risk a pristine coast unlike any other so oil tycoons can get rich? I just don’t think its all that great of an argument to be honest… it makes me think why does this guy really get so passionate about his support for this raw deal? What is his hidden motivation?

Johnny on the other hand… I just think he says what he hears and doesn’t really think for himself anyways… seems kind of obvious.

If the project was so good and we could really put a price tag on a ‘cleanup’ for a real minus 40 winter storm advisory mess of a spill… than surely they can afford the $20 billion for insurance that would require for Enbridge to share their portion of the cost to the risk? A cost set buy the much smaller and lighter Valdez example.

What Enbridge only wants to buy insurance for $500 million… is that the price of BC’s coast? Or are we subsidizing the Gateway foreigners $19.5 billion for the honor of them shipping toxic sludge through our pristine northern coast?

Why is BC subsiding Harper and his foreign minions at Gateway for $19.5 billion in insurance costs?

Is it because Enbridge has a 100% guarantee against winter storms, minus 40, landslides, floods like we had in the Pine Pass last year? Some guarantee if you ask me.

To me this Gateway project separates the true patriots from the big hats looking out for number one.

I for one give Gateway two thumbs down.

Natural gas exports have many of the same troubling economic parallels… saving grace is that a gas tanker incident is going to dissipate, and not cost $20 billion to clean up, and not ruin the coast forever.

Where is the study that shows how long Alberta tar sands dissipates, as opposed to Valdez light crude, (at twenty some years and counting), as opposed to BC natural gas liquified?

So if it comes down to only so many suitable locations for export terminals, than what do we eliminate? A gas terminal to make way for the much riskier gateway tar sands terminal? It seems obvious this will be an either or question far before Gateway ever gets final approval.

Will the so called ‘green’ BC liberals support Alberta tar exports over BC gas exports? Wow, I bet they would….

This is the less populated country in the world and we have the furthest to travel which translates into heigh fuel cost. It would just make sence to refine our own oil and give Canadians prefered fuel prices. This would be doing Canadians a favor and that is what we pay politicians to do rather than invade our privacy with “Smart Meters”, and internet surveillance which is criminal activity in Canada the last timed I looked. The jobs created by refining our own fuel would surely go a long way to strengthen our economy. There would be more than enough oil to sell the world market and refined oil is cleaner to transport and more expensive for the purchaser, translating to more money in our pockets.

The HST is baby pablum next to what will happen if the feds and/or bc libs try to push this pipeline through against the wishes of the majority of BCers. We will then see how the feds will use the RCMP as bodyguards to look after the corporate agenda because the blockades and protests and work stoppages will be second to none.
It will be as close to a civil war this country has ever seen. Mark my words, this won’t go through.

Whoever said this pipeline is for the betterment of Canada and our economy has been lying to you. It’s like the HST, if it really is that good for the people then why not be up front about it before anything is done. Because in both cases, the pipeline and the HST, the gov’t knew they couldn’t BS the people enough to get thier approval. Solution: ram it through without thier approval, expecting all the sheep to roll over and accept it. Obviously the people don’t want to be sheep anymore, except johnny that is.

Eagleone: “Johnny on the other hand… I just think he says what he hears and doesn’t really think for himself anyways… seems kind of obvious. “

Look who’s talking! In any case, it doesn’t matter what I say, I’m not changing your mind, so why bother? There’s plenty of information out there if you care to do your research.

I realize I’m not following the mob on here by supporting this project, and that makes me some sort of target to some, but I don’t really care.

Maybe eagleone is one of those well heeled protestors that gamblor mentioned earlier. Who knows.

As I already mentioned, this region has already been compromised by oilsands pipelines already in operation. Look at a globe. Junk from Japan washes up on our shores. Therefore, any spill in the pacific would eventually find its way here. A spill on the south coast would affect the north coast.

I agree oil prices will likely rise and its unfair that we won’t see a drop of this oil, but again – THE DECISION HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE!!! This oil is flowing NOW. And stopping Enbridge won’t stop the oil.

If Enbridge fails:
-We WILL pay world prices because we are ALREADY exporting.
-The north coast is not protected because we are not immune to a spill further south and tankers are ALREADY out there.
-The Kinder Morgan pipeline risks both our coasts AND the Fraser headwaters, yet we got nothing for it and never will since its TOO LATE.
-Americans will get more control over Canadian resources.
-More will simply flow through Kinder Morgan’s pipeline, making our risk with no reward situation worse.
-The north gets nothing.

Yes its a crummy situation but the first pipeline was a game changer and its too late to do anything about it. The best we can do now is support a Canadian company and get SOME jobs and money for our already compromised lands. Be rational.

Lastly, it makes sense to export oilands crude. Its garbage anyway and dirty to refine. Sell it and import higher grades of crude for domestic use. Again, a little industry understanding goes a long way.

Why not put a 25% export tax on all offshore Canadian exports of oil? That would be a confidence builder for Canadians. If the oil companies want to sell off shore at world prices, then they would have to first ensure Canadian prices are 25% less then world prices. Maybe Enbridge wouldn’t go ahead then and its a win win for all involved.

What’s so bad about paying world prices??? Higher prices encourage conservation and investment in alternatives for both foreign and domestic markets. Think long-term. Think big-picture. Don’t be a typical myopic environmentalist. And Enbridge not going ahead would be a disaster for all the reasons I already mentioned. If nothing else, the media circus is already scaring away other investment in the north big-time. We are already branded wild-eyed eco freaks. This will only seal our fate.

Aside from Ft. Mac, few Canadian refineries can even upgrade oilsands crude and its a filthy process. It appeals to the Chinese because of the coke by-product. In Ft. Mac the coke is landfilled. It is waste. In China, it is a valuable steel-making commodity. The Chinese have no interest in buying refined products. They WANT tar. They get to make oil products and put the coke to good use. Everybody wins. Let them have it. Its an inferior product anyway.