“in an area generally regarded as one of the worst stretches of water in the world”

oops, lost me on that one…but I know what you are driving at

Come on Ben…now you are gettin sucked in by the misinformation spouted by the WWF. The dangerous waters referred to is the Hecate Straight and tankers never go through there. If these ships were transiting the ‘4th. most dangerous waters in the world’ you might expect the report from Transport Canada and the Pacific Pilotage Authority to have mentioned this…however, they endorse the tanker route entirely…

‘…and taking into account the proponent’s commitments, no regulatory concerns have been identified for the vessels, vessel operations, the proposed routes, navigability, other waterway users and the marine terminal operations associated with vessels supporting the Northern Gateway Project,” reads the Transport Canada review.
Transport Canada’s TERMPOL report was prepared and approved by numerous Canadian government agencies – including Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Coast Guard, and Pacific Pilotage Authority Canada.

Although amusing, I think the estrogen showdown between these two western premiers is just a sideshow that will have no bearing on the outcome of this.

Clark is the epitome of the lame duck. Campbell cut the legs out from under her before she even started by handing over our provincial rights to review this project to the NEB. Even if he hadn’t, I’m not convinced the outcome would have been different than it will be.

Government needs to start listening to the people they work for, or suffer the consequences.

Alberta won’t even agree to pay for a clean up if the pipeline does spill… let alone share revenues for the risk. Enbridge and PetroChina are using corporate law with the corporate legal liability entity Northern Gateway Pipeline Incorporated to ensure they collect only revenue and not liability. No insurance company would insure this project at any kind of rate that would make this project profitable… so why should the tax payer of BC take all the risk financially and to our environment… I still haven’t heard a good argument why?

The position of Alberta, Enbridge, Petro China, and the federal government should tell us loud and clear that this project is a bad deal for BC.

It was a bad idea for B.C. and I’m glad it’s not going to happen.

Birdman refers to the following statement by Transport Canada, ‘…and taking into account the proponent’s commitments, no regulatory concerns have been identified for the vessels, vessel operations, the proposed routes, navigability, other waterway users and the marine terminal operations associated with vessels supporting the Northern Gateway Project,”

When you read it quickly it sounds great, but it contains one phrase of weasel words which completely destroys its position.

It says, ‘…and taking into account the proponent’s commitments, …”

We have all heard how non-committed Enbridge is about stopping oil spills and how non-committed they are to cleaning up spills when they do happen. Why then take their gratuitous promises into account? It seems to me that this caveat was put in the statement because without it Transport Canada knows that severe environmental damage will happen sooner or later, but is more concerned about promoting the interests of an oil company and an oil producing province, which coincidentally happens to be the home province of the Prime Minister, than it is in preserving the integrity of BC’s land base.

“Alberta Premier Redford has made it clear, once again, that her government is not prepared to hand over any royalties to the province of BC for the movement of oil from the tar sands for shipment offshore.”

So she hands over something else. Put the money into royalties, and support BC to be compensated for moving the bitumen through BC. Quebec did it with Churhill Falls hydro electricity when Quebec would only accept a contract in which the power was sold to Quebec.

So, keep Alberta out of it, let BC handle the transport of the bitumen through the province which would allow us to ensure our interests are met. If a deal cannot be reached, tell Alberta and the Feds to lump it.

Play politics Quebec style (masters of our own house) for a change rather than bitching at Quebec for watching out for their own people. We have to remind ourselves we are a federation with some very strong powers. Quebec showed that and continues to do so. Alberta showed that with respect to killing the National Energy Program.

Looks like it is now our turn to remind everyone of the realities of needing to get along rather than applying bullying tactics.

BTW, the blogs seem to be thinking that the Calgary oil barons have realized that Enbridge’s Gateway proposal is dead.

Its not just the spills that wil;l take place the entire project is for more profit for big oil. It will keep the price of gas in Canada at record highs just to provide more a product and will continue to polute our environment. The Tar Sand project is over the top as a poluter.

If we stopped exporting our oil and started to refine the product would be the sensible thing to do. This would provide more permanent jobs and probably keep the cost of gasolene at a more reasonable level.

And why is Cristy Crunch trying to get more royalties from Alberta, The person to is the dictator in Ottawa who goes by the name of Harper.
Cheers

What does this do for the rest of our once close relationship with Alberta?The next time forest fires are out of control in AB,does the BC gov’t send in our firefighters right away or do they delay them or vice versa?I am not saying they should as it would be morally wrong,but who knows what gov’t will do when they have been screwed on another issue.

Hey Retired 02, do you drive a car? Or perhaps use ball point pens, balloons, aspirin, dice, dispsable diapers, insect repellent, hearing aids, shampoo, insulation, or trashbags to name a few items… We need oil, so I don’t think it’s a question of kiboshing all oil operations, it’s about our province and protecting our environment.

Stretch28, it does not look to me that you have read Retired 02’s post.

Please re-read and then cut and paste the part of the post which leads you to think he is against products derived from oil.

Stretch28 should at least acknowledge that we already have all of the items he mentions, yet there is no Enbridge pipeline to send bitumen to China. If we leave things as they are, then, we can have all of the items mentioned and still preserve the quality of our land.

“Its not just the spills that will take place the entire project is for more profit for big oil”

I am not saying we need to destroy our land, or that I support the Pipline. I am saying that the environent is the forefront of the argument, it isn’ just to hate on “big oil”. We all need it, so lets find a better solution to the problem.

“We all need it, so lets find a better solution to the problem.”

They already have the solution to the problem. Enbridges backup plan is to pipe the bitumen east in an existing pipeline. So it has to take a loinger route to China. Oh well, they have the money to get it there.

“I am saying that the environent is the forefront of the argument, it isn’ just to hate on “big oil”.

If Enbridge had the cleanist track record on the planet people would still oppose the pipeline. The problem is that Enbridge’s track record isn’t exactly squeeky clean. That alone is why this pipeline should not be built.

Shame on Mr. Harper for vilifying the constituents of BC for not going along with his plans with Enbridge. The majority of BC constituents know how unhealthy an oil spill is. We are protecting our children from the carcinogens produced by oil spills and Enbridge has admitted there will be a spill somewhere along the proposed route. I haven’t voted for Mr. Harper in the last election and I CERTAINLY won’t vote for him in the next one either.

You know when someone brings up ‘the children’ the rhetoric is in full swing.

“I haven’t voted for Mr. Harper in the last election and I CERTAINLY won’t vote for him in the next one either.”

If you actually voted, you would know that you don’t cast a vote for the Prime Minister.

This pipeline is nothing new. As long as there is a voracious appetite for Chinese made goods, they will need the oil. How many so-called anti-pipeliners frequent the big box stores in town? My guess is that they don’t make the connection or are fine with being hypocrites.

Will there still be a Wallmart if this pipeline isn’t built JohnnyB? Will we still be able to buy products from China if the pipeline isn’t built?

Don’t worry China will get their oil just not through BC.

Once again a pro-pipeliner doesn’t see that we already have Big Box Stores in BC, all over the place, and there is no Enbridge pipeline to carry bitumen. In other words, the pipeline isn’t needed for the Big Box Stores to function. Let’s have our cake and eat it too, forget the pipeline and continue to shop at the Big Box Stores.

Incidentally, many people do vote for the prime minister. The cast their vote for the party who is headed by the person they want as PM. If you actually knew anything about Canadian politics you would know that.

Gus I don’t know where you got your information on Churchill Falls Quebec ripoff, I suggest you read this. We should use the same principle on Alberta.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/story.html?id=17f52755-7ede-45a5-8b2f-6a8b7d004957

This oil will probably go to the USA. Just because a few newspaper reports say it will go to China, doesnt mean it will go to China. Im betting it goes to California.

There are other alternatives.

1. Use (and expand) the existing pipeline from Alberta to Vancouver. (Route Alberta, to Taylor BC to Pr George, to Kamloops, to Vancouver). Then move the oil out of Vancouver via ship. We are already shipping oil out of Vancouver.

2. Wait until the US Election is over and move the oil to the USA via the Keystone Pipleline, to Texas. (This doesnt help Californias refineries)

3. Move the oil on the existing pipeline (Trans Canada Pipeline) from Alberta to Ontario, and thence out on the St Lawerance Seaway, or refine it in Ontario, and stop importing from Norway.

One thing is certain. The Oil Sands will make Canada the third largest oil producer in the world after, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, and if anyone thinks that we will not exploit this resouce, they are living in a dream world.

Harper left Alberta and went to Ontario when he was four years old, so its a bit of a stretch to say Alberta is his Province.

Calling Harper a dictator when he was elected under a democratic system, is rather foolish. He is the Prime Minister of a duly elected majority government. Get used to the idea.

Christy Clark has already accepted the pipeline going through BC. What she is asking for is more money/jobs for BC. So in essence the BC Liberals are on board. Once the First Nations sign on, its a done deal, and we can go on to something else.

“If you actually voted, you would know that you don’t cast a vote for the Prime Minister”…how do you know where thier electoral district is JB? Maybe they vote in his riding.

Enbridge is dead, China will get oil, Alberta will continue to run deficits, BC will be fine, salmon and marine species will thrive..

Johnny can go fly a kite in Chinese Disneyland.

Save your money Enbridge, your pipeline died with the BC Liberals, Harper too will be thrown from office over Enbridge..

An orange sweep..Adrian Dix Premier..Thomas Mulcair, Prime Minister..

Johnnybelt crying in his cornflakes!

Now is the time for Christy to say no to the Northern Gateway pipeline. Alberta refuses to discuss our concerns, then move on and say no. This will force Ottawa’s hand in this project one way or the other.

This project is far from dead, if Ottawa deems it a national interest and will push it through and there is nothing BC can do about. Then it will be a war in the woods, nothing like we have ever seen in this province. Take all of the logging protests over the last 30 or so years and all of the First Nations blockages, lump them together and multiply it by a 1,000. Opposition will only increase as it crosses BC.

If Ottawa deems it a national interest, there is something BC can do about it.

They can start the process of seceding from the country.

Canada needs BC more than BC needs the country. The most obvious consequence is that without BC they have no access to the Pacific.

Apparently during the negotiations of the Columbia River Treaty, BC Premier WAC Bennett threatened to take BC out of Canada if Ottawa and Washington would not meet his demands.

In fact the Columbia River Treaty might be a good example of what a projection of the benefits of a mega project looks like before implementation and what it looks like afterwards. As with any large, unknown project, it is prudent to factor in a large contingency allowance for unknown events and who will pay in the case of unknown events happening.

In hindsight, the impacts of the treaty were not totally positive. It is likely that the terms of the treaty would never have been accepted today. The negative impacts of the treaty have affected both the economy and the environment of BC.

1.Treaty revenue from U.S. was used to pay in part for the construction of 3 dams but the cost to BC exceeded the revenue initially received from the sale of downstream power and flood control benefits.

2.The province also had to pay for improved highway, bridges, railway relocation, as well as welfare increases for the people affected by installation of the dams.

3.It is also alleged that school and hospital construction suffered, and services such as the Forest Service, highways and water resources were secretly tapped for funds.

In hindsight the 30 year sale of the Canadian Entitlement and the 60 year agreement to provide assured flood control benefits were grossly undervalued at the time of the treaty signing.

Then there is the benefit of the power producing half a million tons of aluminum for the U.S. By 1974, treaty power had increased this production threefold, hurting BC’s own aluminum production, effectively exporting thousands of jobs in this industry.

Other negative impacts include the flooding of approximately 600 km2 of fertile and productive valley bottoms to fill the reservoirs. No assessment of the value of flooded forest land was ever made; land which could have produced valuable timber for the BC economy.

Maybe we need to look at history a bit and make sure that we do not keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

“Incidentally, many people do vote for the prime minister.”

Actually, not so much. They vote for the political party which has a platform they agree with and a leader they like. They vote for a local candidate. By doing that they have given the party the authority to decide who leads it via a convention of delegates if it must choose a new leader.

On rare occasions party members get to vote by mail or telephone DIRECTLY for who they prefer as the leader of the party. Voters who are not party members are of course not entitled to vote. They are the vast majority which has no REAL direct control.

JohnnyBelt would know (if he ever voted in any provincial election) that as a non-member one doesn’t get to vote directly for a provincial premier either! His remarks are of the type they always are! Simply Abrasive.

Notice how all the politicians are slowly coming on board the Enbridge train ? Us voters have no say as usual, the politicians will do what they want as Harper pulls their strings.

BC is taking all the risk with no gain.

Harper has no strings to pull. He is a lame duck prime minister if he keeps going the way he is. Canada has run a trade surplus for decades until he screwed that up, even with the oil.

Just like BC continues to hang its hat on natural resources, Harper is following suit while other counries in the western world are playing the trade game with China using manufactured goods as well as services.

I see no move by Harper to start to play the game differently. Strengthen the economies of ALL the provinces, not just Alberta’s lazy game plan.

PG: “JohnnyBelt would know (if he ever voted in any provincial election) that as a non-member one doesn’t get to vote directly for a provincial premier either! His remarks are of the type they always are! Simply Abrasive. “

They’re abrasive because you don’t agree with them, and you’re uncomfortable with opposing viewpoints. Don’t worry, you’re not alone.

Oh, and please feel free to quote where I said that we vote directly for a provincial premier.

I see Criminalmind is still alive and well in his own fantasy world.