Enbridge Hearings Start in P.G. Today
Tuesday, October 9, 2012 @ 4:32 AM
Prince George, B.C.- The hearings on the proposed Northern Gateway twin pipeline proposal are set to get underway in Prince George today.
The Prince George hearings will focus on the following subjects:
· the environmental and socio-economic effects of the proposed pipelines;
· potential impacts on landowners and land use of the pipelines;
· routing, design and construction of the pipelines and marine terminal; and
· operations, safety, accident prevention and emergency preparedness and response related to the pipelines.
Economist Robyn Allan, appeared before the Joint Review Panel during it’s session in Edmonton and advised the panel Enbridge, the project proponent, should arrange for insurance coverage of at least one billion dollars, to consider that amount as the “floor level” to cover the costs of damages should there be any spill .
Today’s hearing is set to start at 1:00 this afternoon and go through until 5:00. Today through the 19th, the hearings will be held at the Columbus Community Centre on Domano Boulevard. With the exception of today, sitting hours will be 9-noon and 1:30 to 4:30 Monday to Friday, and 8:30-12:30 on Saturday.
The hearings will then take a break, and return to Prince George from the 29th of October to the 9th of November with that round being held at the Ramada Hotel in downtown Prince George.
The hearing will be broadcast live over the Joint Review Panel’s hearing website, which is accessible by clicking here.
Comments
Robyn Allen suggests 1 billion for insurance, well I figure the price should be 50 billion. With their track record I would expect no less. You can’t put a price on what sort of spill is going to happen in the future 40 yrs so the negotiating price needs to be high. Do it right the first time, because your chance will not come again.
Interesting how people don’t like foreign countries like China the US etc. investing in our country but will let non Canadian groups like sierra club, world wild life group etc. etc. come in and try to tell our government and Canadians what to do. Why do you folks allow that? These groups are pumping millions of dollars in trying to subvert this country.
When this country and Enbridge question these groups and their funding everyone gets their knickers in a knot.
Harper is the only politician with the balls to stand up against this subversion.
Does anyone know are these hearings this week open to the public?
Just look at it in this fashion, seamutt.
When it comes to federations such as Canada and the USA, each of the provinces/states in the federation has considerable rights when it comes to how to conduct their business.
Once the matter deals with interprovincial commerce, the federal governments have some jurisdiction or at the least joint jurisdiction.
It seems reasonable that when it comes to international matters companies and NGOs have the right to lobby in peaceful fashion to get their points of view into the public’s eye.
The Sierra Club, specifically, is no different than any multinational company, it has chapters outside of its country of origin and, in Canada, is registered in the Country as well as provinces, including BC.
http://www.sierraclub.bc.ca
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gXaYZVGw44&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlnri_scklA&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=fvwp&v=dOKmeV-sBEU
True video of Enbridge in action, or inaction..
Hey Elaine, take a hike, stop suppressing the truth and deleting my posts
Seamutt …. the notion that “everyone gets their knickers in a knot” is hyperbole.
Just as some people do not like that China is backing the Enbridge deal, there are people, such as you, who do not like the funding for organizations like the Sierra Club and the many other similar organization.
As with anyone else, you can have your say. But to suggest one is right and the other is wrong is the height of arrogance.
http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Environment/2012/10/07/enbridge-kalamazoo-cleanup/
Enbridge ordered back to the Kalamazoo, there is still tar bitumen on the bottom of the river, $870 million for attempted clean up, not enough..
There’s not the slightest reason to believe that environmental organizations are hostile to Canada. They have an agenda which some people may not agree with, but they are consistent in applying their environmental principles. They aren’t singling out Canada and letting other countries off the hook.
It is, furthermore, ridiculous to claim that environmental opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline is due only to pressure and funding from foreign environmental organizations. There is a long history of local environmental activism and there are many who oppose the pipeline on environmental grounds who have no connection to these organizations.
If you favour the pipeline, I suggest that you try to answer the arguments put forward by environmentalists. The invalidity of ad hominem arguments (or, in this case, if you will, ad corporationem), has been well understood since the Middle Ages.
Even former BC Liberal energy minister now Federal senator states..
He doubts Enbridge will ever be allowed to build this pipeline, a comedy of errors..
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Energy+advocate+doubts+Enbridge+ability+Northern+Gateway/7360165/story.html
Don`t delete this, there are actual transcript from the NTSB in the USA, whereas Enbridge was described and labeled “Keystone cops”
______________________
ENBRIDGE: Kalamzoo Disaster â from the US files
Enbridge’s Kalamazoo Disaster: Straight from the Files
US investigators gathered 376 documents on the pipeline rupture nightmare. Direct from those pages, here’s the story.
By Rick Munroe, August 27/12, TheTyee.ca
The US National Transportation Safety Board gathered 14,000 pages of reports, interviews and telephone transcripts investigating how Enbridge allowed its Michigan pipeline to spew Alberta oil sands crude for 17 hours before shut-off.
This is the first in a series of articles culled from documents compiled by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) during its investigation into the rupture of Enbridge Pipeline 6b near Marshall, Michigan, two years ago, which fouled 38 miles of the Kalamazoo River and surrounding areas, causing residents to be evacuated for their health and safety.
The NTSB posted 376 documents totaling over 14,000 pages of reports, interviews, telephone transcripts, etc. This evidence formed the basis of the NTSB’s final report, released to the public on July 26, 2012. The Tyee has replaced some persons’ names with more general descriptors.
1. Enbridge vice president Richard Adams: ‘Our response time… can be almost instantaneous’
Ten days before the Marshall spill, on July 15, 2010, Enbridge’s VP of U.S. operations Richard Adams testified:
“Our response time from our control center can be almost instantaneous, and our large leaks are typically detected by our control center personnel.”
— Congressional Hearing before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Sept. 15, 2010, p. 76.
Line 6b ruptured at 5:58 pm EDT on Sunday, July 25, 2010. During the next 17 hours, personnel at Enbridge’s Control Center (ECC) in Edmonton, Alberta, some 1,500 miles away, failed to recognize that they had a spill. Control center staff restarted the line twice during the overnight shift, pumping about 683,000 gallons of diluted bitumen, in addition to the dilbit which was spilled during the initial rupture. The spill was finally noticed by a gas employee in Marshall who phoned ECC’s emergency line at 11:17 the following morning.
2. ECC operators: ‘It’ll be fun’
More than 10 hours after the rupture, this is part of a telephone conversation between two Enbridge operators at the Edmonton control center. They begin speaking at 4:24 a.m. EDT on Monday, July 26, 2010, a few minutes after the first restart of Line 6b:
CONTROL CENTER: Howdy.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Hey, man. Pretty slow going at startup, hey?
CONTROL CENTER: Yes, very slow. That’s why I’m just wondering either they really drained it out, which I think they did, because I don’t have any pressure farther down the line.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah, they must have because I’m still trying to hold 150 and it’s just sitting there.
CONTROL CENTER: Yeah, exactly. Or else I’m — or else I’m leaking. One of the two.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, either way it’ll be fun.
— from Enbridge Edmonton Control Center Phone Transcripts, Vol. 2, pgs. 596-597
3. Sarnia operator: ‘Are you actually serious?’
One ECC operator expressed concern that they may have a leak on their hands, as opposed to the presumed column separation.
The NTSB final report explains:
About 7:09 a.m., operator B1 notified the Sarnia Terminal operator that they were going to start Line 6B for a second time. The Sarnia Terminal operator expressed disbelief at the idea of a second startup. He told investigators that he had voiced his concerns about a Line 6B leak to shift leads B1 and B2 and MBS analyst B that morning. He stated that MBS analyst B had dismissed his concerns and, because he was dealing with other issues that morning, he had not pursued the matter.
Line 6B was started a second time about 7:20 a.m. [and shut down about 20 minutes later].
— from NTSB Final Report, p. 13.
When interviewed by a NTSB investigator, the Sarnia operator affirmed what was said. [Names of individuals and line indicators have been removed by The Tyee.]
NTSB: …there is a point in the transcripts that we have, I think, just before the second start-up — Sarnia operator: Yeah.
NTSB: — [Line 6b operator] calls you up and asks you, I believe, to open the valves, and I think your response to [him] is something along the lines of, yeah, okay, are you actually serious? I think that’s — those were the words you used.
Sarnia operator: Yeah. By that point in the night, I had, again, voiced what I seen to the only people I could voice to, my shift leads, and [the MBS analyst] when he was trying to decide on what to do for some reason, and it was met with a lot of, you know, we’re handling it, you know, go back to your console. You know, thanks for your input, but, you know. So, by the end of the night I was like they can decide what they would like to do…
— from transcript of interview with Sarnia operator, Nov. 2011, p. 25-26.
4. ECC operators: ‘Let’s not worry about it anymore’
This is part of a telephone conversation between two ECC employees. Investigators subsequently determined the identities of the two speakers, both of them console operators at ECC. This conversation began at 7:54 a.m. EDT on Monday, July 26, 2010 (a few minutes after the second startup and 14 hours after the rupture):
CONTROL CENTER: This is great, eh?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah. Well, I’ve never seen this problem. That’s kind of interesting, to be honest.
CONTROL CENTER: Yeah, this is nice. I like this.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Have you ever done this?
CONTROL CENTER: No not like this.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, neither have I. And to me like it looks like a leak.
CONTROL CENTER: For sure.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And I’m like holy cow that’s amazing. Like I’ve never ever heard of that where you can’t get enough —
CONTROL CENTER: I can pump as hard as I want and I — I’d never over pressure the line?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah. But doesn’t it seem messed up? Like eventually the oil has to go somewhere.
CONTROL CENTER: It has to.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Like, I don’t know.
CONTROL CENTER: (indiscernible)
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I don’t know. Something about this feels wrong.
CONTROL CENTER: Yup.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Whatever. We’re going home. We’re off for a few days.
CONTROL CENTER: Exactly.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Let’s not worry about it anymore.
CONTROL CENTER: I’m done. Exactly. We’re not going to try this again. Not on our shift.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No.
— from Enbridge Edmonton Control Center Phone Transcripts, Vol. 2, pgs. 662-663.
5. The 10 Minute Rule
One of the NTSB documents is titled, “Source of 10-minute rules.” It examines a Minnesota spill in March, 1991 which was remarkably similar to the Marshall spill. This spill is notable not only for its similarities but for three additional reasons:
1. The 1991 spill led to the creation of Enbridge’s “10 minute rule” — an internal procedure to prevent additional oil from being pumped during a suspected leak.
2. The 10 minute rule was not adhered to during the Marshall spill, resulting in the pumping of large volumes of oil for over an hour (as in the 1991 spill).
3. Enbridge’s regional manager during the 2010 Marshall spill was Lakehead’s manager of operations services during the late 1990s. As the telephone transcript further down indicates, this manager, despite his awareness of the historical reasons for the 10-minute rule, gives permission for a third restart of Line 6b.
NTSB summarized the 1991 spill and the origins of Enbridge’s “10 minute rule”:
The 10-minute limitation was adopted as a result of the March 1991 Enbridge rupture and release that occurred on Line 3, spilling 1.7 million gallons of crude oil in Grand Rapids, Minnesota… During the 1991 accident, personnel in Enbridge’s Edmonton Control Center interpreted the SCADA alarms and indications to a condition of column separation and instrument error and continued to pump oil into the ruptured 34-inch-diameter line for more than an hour until the leak was recognized.
In 1991, Enbridge stated in its response to PHMSA that a revision to the operation maintenance procedures manual was adopted stating, “If an operator experiences pressure or flow abnormalities or unexplainable changes in line conditions for which a reason cannot be established within a 10- minute period, the line shall be shut down, isolated, and evaluated until the situation is verified and or [sic] corrected.”
— NTSB Final Report, p. 52
6. ‘Our aggressive, proactive and risk-based integrity management program’
In 1998, Lakehead’s manager of operations services wrote to the Office of Pipeline Safety, pointing out his company’s improvements and the importance of an “awareness of… history.” From that letter:
Lakehead’s actions subsequent to the Consent Order Agreement have significantly exceeded the requirements and directives of the Order. Our aggressive, proactive and risk-based integrity management program has addressed longitudinal seam cracks in USS SAW pipe, corrosion, operator training and pressure cycling. Lakehead has made a commitment to continue this focussed approach into the future…
Lakehead’s commitment to personnel training will ensure that awareness of Line 3 issues including history and evolution of the integrity program are maintained.
Lakehead… recommends that the Consent Order be officially closed.
Sincerely,
[Manager, Operations Services]
— Lakehead’s letter to Rick Gulstad (OPS), Dec. 2, 1998 [in NTSB docket].
The author of this 1998 letter went on to become the Chicago region manager with Enbridge. Twelve years later, this same individual apparently forgot his “awareness of Line 3 issues including history” — ie. why the 10-minute rule is necessary — as the next document details.
7. The 10 Minute Rule, ignored
What follows is a part of the transcript of a telephone conversation between Enbridge’s Chicago region manager and a shift supervisor at Enbridge’s control center in Edmonton. In the NTSB transcript, the Chicago region manager is identified by his first name. As a courtesy, his name is here replaced by “CRM” (Chicago region manager).
This conversation began at 10:16 a.m. EDT on Monday, July 26, 2010 (16 hours after the rupture):
CONTROL CENTER: So normally when things [i.e. pressures] go to zero —
CRM: Yeah, you check for leaking.
CONTROL CENTER: — suction end discharge [should read, “suction and discharge”] you’d be checking for leaks for sure.
CRM: Yeah.
CONTROL CENTER: And normally if it goes to zero it’s usually something that happens right at the station.
CRM: Right.
CONTROL CENTER: All three transmitters went to zero at exactly the same time.
CRM: Right.
CONTROL CENTER: But I guess at this point we’re kind of at a loss. We’re looking at more numbers here right now.
CRM: Okay.
CONTROL CENTER: But initially I don’t know if you guys need to check out some of the pipeline upstream and downstream of Marshall?
CRM: I wouldn’t think so. I — you know, if it’s right at Marshall — you know, it seems like there’s something else going wrong either with the computer or with, with the instrumentation. And then your lost column and things go haywire, right?
CONTROL CENTER: Yeah. But, I guess —
CRM: Yeah, do you want them to check?
CONTROL CENTER: Well —
CRM: I’m not — right now I’m not, I’m not convinced. We haven’t had any phone calls. I mean it’s perfect weather out here.
CONTROL CENTER: Yeah, (indiscernible).
CRM: Someone — if it’s a rupture someone’s going to notice that, you know, and smell it.
CONTROL CENTER: Yeah. Yeah, for sure.
CRM: So —
CONTROL CENTER: Yeah, I guess — okay. At this point we’ll just keep looking into things here.
CRM: Yeah.
Later in the same conversation:
CONTROL CENTER: But, but yeah, our thinking was that it should have filled up downstream because we weren’t taking much out. But yeah, we’ll do some more digging. I guess —
CRM: Yeah, have a look. If you have —
CONTROL CENTER: So if we can’t, if we can’t make sense of the numbers then, yeah, we may have to give you guys a call back to —
CRM: Yeah, call us back, but —
CONTROL CENTER: — check (indiscernible).
CRM: — I’m okay with you guys ready to go if it looks like the numbers are fitting. [CRM appears to be giving permission for a third re-start of Line 6b.]
CONTROL CENTER: Yeah. Is [Enbridge Marshall employee] an electrician or is he a —
CRM: Yep. Yep.
CONTROL CENTER: He is, eh?
CRM: Yeah.
CONTROL CENTER: Is there any way he can check the transmitters to see that —
CRM: Sure.
CONTROL CENTER: — the —
CRM: You want to, you want to give him call and just
CONTROL CENTER: (indiscernible) the PLC or the transmitters or —
CRM: Yep. Yeah, just give him a call and —
CONTROL CENTER: — (indiscernible) something.
CRM: Yeah. You guys call him directly so that I’m not playing middleman and —
CONTROL CENTER: Okay. Yeah, no for sure.
CRM: — and just get him to check things out. Tell him that we’re just — your numbers aren’t jiving and things aren’t –we want to double check before we fire up [i.e. to restart Line 6b for a third time].
CONTROL CENTER: Yeah. Yeah, awesome. All right, [CRM].
CRM: You got, you got my okay to go, but give us a call if you want us to definitely check.
CONTROL CENTER: Yeah.
CRM: But we would have, we would have heard something by now.
CONTROL CENTER: Okay. No, it sounds good. So that whole Marshall area upstream and downstream is pretty populated then, correct?
CRM: Yeah.
CONTROL CENTER: Is that right?
CRM: Yeah. Well, I wouldn’t say populated, but I mean there’s farms —
CONTROL CENTER: Yeah.
CRM: — and there’s houses and people driving around all the time, yeah.
CONTROL CENTER: All over — all the time, yeah.
CRM: Yes.
CONTROL CENTER: Yeah. Okay. No, it sounds good then, [CRM].
CRM: All righty?
CONTROL CENTER: We might give you call — if we do decide to start up again we might give you a call anyways —
CRM: Yep.
CONTROL CENTER: — just to double check, but —
CRM: No problem. We’ll help you out. I’m sitting in here my office.
CONTROL CENTER: Awesome. Thanks, [CRM].
— from Enbridge Edmonton Control Center Phone Transcripts, Vol. 2, pgs. 725-726 and 727-729.
8. Enbridge’s no news is good news approach to leak detection
The NTSB made the following observations regarding Enbridge’s interpretation of the absence of external notifications:
The control center staff, to some extent, and the Chicago regional manager believed that unintended product releases would be reported by outside sources (that is, either affected citizens or community officials)…
The visual confirmation of the leak did not occur until 11:17 a.m. on July 26. In the absence of that confirmation from a person located in Marshall, control center personnel discounted the possibility of a leak, largely because no external confirmation of a leak was present. Thus, the absence of information on a leak led to the belief that there was no leak, and that some other phenomenon, yet unrecognized, was causing the column separation.
Moreover, there was no evidence that any member of the control center staff sought to obtain information from anyone in the Marshall vicinity to verify the presence of a leak. Rather than actively soliciting information from sources in the Marshall area, the control center staff continued their erroneous decision-making by misinterpreting the absence of notifications from the Marshall community as actual information that there was no leak…
Therefore, the NTSB concludes that Enbridge control center staff misinterpreted the absence of external notifications as evidence that Line 6B had not ruptured.
— from NTSB Final Report, p. 100
9. Treachur: ‘There’s a ****pile of it. That creek is black’
This is part of the emergency call which finally alerted the Control Center to the fact that Enbridge had a large spill. This call began at 11:17 a.m. EDT on Monday, July 26, 2010 (more than 17 hours after the initial spill):
CONTROL CENTER: Enbridge pipeline emergency phone. Go ahead. What’s your pipeline emergency?
MR. TREACHUR: Yes. This is Chris Treachur. I work for Consumers Energy and I’m in Marshall. There’s oil getting into the creek and I believe it’s from your pipeline.
CONTROL CENTER: Okay.
MR. TREACHUR: I mean there’s a lot. We’re getting, we’re getting like 20 gas leak calls and everything. So I found — do you know where the address was of that creek oil? I’m trying to remember that, but anyway it’s between 27 and 16 mile. We’re trying to walk your line and see if we can find where it’s broke.
CONTROL CENTER: Okay.
MR. TREACHUR: But it’s — I mean, there’s, there’s a ___pile of it. That creek is black.
CONTROL CENTER: Okay, so —
MR. TREACHUR: It’s running.
CONTROL CENTER: Yeah. Your name is Chris Treachur?
— from Enbridge Edmonton Control Center Phone Transcripts Enbridge Edmonton Control Center Phone Transcripts, Vol. 2, pgs. 771- 772.
Later this week, the next installment of this series will examine how circumstances in Marshall inhibited the ability of local authorities to correctly diagnose a major oil spill for 17 hours.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TabdIyvRL7c
seamutt: Can you give us an example of how ‘enviromental groups’ are funding opposition to this plan? I’m just saying that I haven’t been approached by anyone. I’ve done my own research and have come to my own conclusions, on whether it would be a good idea or not.
I don’t like the idea one bit and don’t think these big corporations, especially this one can be trusted. Period. When they went to court to get their responsibility excused, that did it for me.
Seamutt does not debate. He states opinions and that is it …… it is called opinion 250, not debate 250 … he knows how to follow implied instructions …. ;-)
Thanks for that video Dragon.
I am sick to my stomach to imagine that something like this could happen to our Province. I’m also appalled at Enbrige for going after this fellow for telling his TRUTH on the keystone pipeline!
If your worried about our health care now, can you imagine what it will be like if we let this happen?
“Interesting how people don’t like foreign countries like China the US etc. investing in our country but will let non Canadian groups like sierra club, world wild life group etc. etc. come in and try to tell our government and Canadians what to do. Why do you folks allow that? These groups are pumping millions of dollars in trying to subvert this country”
You raise subversion and then talk about China and the Sierra Club as if they are equals in those regards? Wow.
‘I can guarantee the NDP will form the next federal government in Canada.’
That one made me snort coffee out of my nose. Talk about delusional.
‘To (sic) bad you didn’t have a heart attack and die off so we can have a country to be proud of.’
If you want to live in a backward, socialist, self-entitled state, move to Greece. Or maybe Quebec.
Logo
Security check has failed, you may return to the lobby page and try again.
So has anyone else gotten this message?
Are these hearing for just special interest groups.
“If you want to live in a backward, socialist, self-entitled state, move to Greece. Or maybe Quebec”
You realize that neither Greece or Quebec are socialist right?
Heck, to the US, Canada is socialist. So is Germany, Finland, Norway, France and most every other progressive nation on earth.
So how do you define socialism?
hammy try this link, it’s only audio but it seems to be working (need to click on the English Feed option:
http://www.meetview.com/neb/index.php?enter
We must be debated out on Enbridge – we are down to criminalmind repeats and threats of a gas chamber. Good grief…
Northernfront needs the banhammer.
Looks like I pulled a few wedgies. Have I said anywhere I support the pipeline. I would rather not see it built, but if built use the best technology available.
Interesting how people call me names and insults, is that the best you guys got in this DEBATE. Comments remind me of an elementary school yard.
So I guess you folks are okay with some rich NGO calling the shots in this country, pity.
Being hated by a guy like yourself northernfront, I take as a compliment. Thanks…
And this year’s Foaming at the Mouth Award (complete with complimentary tin foil hat) goes to…
northernfront!
http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/canada-at-risk-from-chinese-firm-us-warns-1
âThe committee concluded that allowing Huawei to help build American networks could potentially be used by Chinese cyber-spies to steal U.S. state and commercial secrets, or even to disrupt everything from electrical power grids to banking systems in a time of conflict.
âBut in an exclusive interview with CBC News, committee chairman Mike Rogers warns that Canada is equally at risk.
âIn contrast, both the U.S. and Australia have simply banned Huawei from bidding on major telecommunications projects, or attempting to take over American companies. â
It is not that Harper has balls â¦. It is that Harper has no brains â¦..
Energy and telecommunications are matters of national security. Anyone who does not understand that has no brains in my world. China should not be getting raw material so that they can benefit from processing it, they should not get raw logs, they should not build our telecommunications networks.
Harper and anyone else of the same mind, no matter what political stripe, is a security threat to this country.
Seamutt, others may have called you names, but I did not.
Looking back on what you wrote:
“Harper is the only politician with the balls to stand up against this subversion.”(Sierra Club)
And he does not have the balls to stand up against China taking raw bitumen from us and what could be subversion of the old kind, building a “secure” telecommunications network with a state owned company which may even have been involved with compromising the security of the existing system since the cyberattack reportedly came from China.
“In the past two years, Canada has been hard-hit by China-based cyber-attacks on government, corporations and even Bay Street law firms.
“The latest attack managed to penetrate the computer systems of a Calgary-based company that makes the digital control systems for almost all of Canada’s oil and gas pipelines.”
I am not normally one who supports conspiracy theories, but in this case I feel caution is appropriate.
Sorry for the almost double post ….. I did not see that the original had actually been posted …. :-(
Does anyone know how to get video on these hearings, or if these hearings are open to the public?
http://www.meetview.com/neb
http://www.meetview.com/neb/index.php?enter
try those.
Gateway is dead!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/you-heard-it-here-northern-gateways-dead/article4589760/
He He better throw out all our electronics then. But I do agree China will be a power to reckon with the not too distant future.
During the so called cold war with Russia the only place to get tubes for the then radar defence network was from Russia.
“since British Columbians are hardly to be led around by their collective nose by a handful of folks from south of the border.”
Those handfull of folks have tens of millions of dollars behind them. Those handfull of folk are why China is getting much of our manufacturing.
Comments for this article are closed.