And in other news CSIS opens up a new file for their client Kinder Morgan to collect data on those opposed to the project.

If we must have more oil piped into the Vancouver area, then the local refinery must be supplied with enough oil to run at capacity. From what has been reported in fine pront on the inside pages of our media, I have learned that the local refinery often is unable to operate at capacity because they don’t receive enough oil. The reason given is the price. Canadian crude must go to Canadian refineries. Suppiles in excess of domestical needs can be sold abroad.

I dream of Canadian resources being exploited for Canada. Don’t wake me up.

Steve, the Kinder Morgan line does not run through PG, you can see us at the top left of the map, the little dot that says ‘Prince George’

If there is a spill the taxpayer shouldn’t have to pay for any of the clean up

The oil has to move. It’s either this or rail.

The Name of the Pipeline is “Trans Mountain”
not by the Name whoever owns it, next we call our Country by the Owners Name! How long has it been called Trans Mountain?

The only way to be safe and clean is start dismantling pipelines all over Canada and replace them with wind turbines and solar panels. Wait a minute. How’s that working out in Ontario? Hmmmm?

Harbinger I think you are confusing oil pipelines with natural gas pipelines. You are also confusing domestic energy needs with a commodity that is being exported. You are also confusing a commodity used to produce gasoline and other products to sources used to generate electricity.

Other than that, you are bang on. LOL ;)

The Kinder Morgan ‘owned’ line does not run through PG – this to your satisfaction Outwest?

Like the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline, this Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion will end up meeting the Lib-Cons five conditions.

Those five condition are just like the Joint Review Panel process; make the oil transportation companies jump through hoops, they get their projects approved and British Columbians end up assuming all the risks!

There will be risks because two of the five BC Lib-Con government conditions use the terms; “World-leading marine oil spill prevention, response, and World-leading practices for land oil spill prevention, response.” So what are the current marine oil spill recovery rates, and what are the current land oil spill recovery rates?

“The proportion of spilled oil that was recovered averaged 91 percent for out-of-water spills, compared to an average recovery rate of just 41 percent for oil spilled directly into the water. Taking all types of incidents together, the annual average recovery rate was 44 percent of the total volume of oil spilled.” *Vessel Oil Spills in US Waters: Descriptive Statistics; Di Jin Marine Policy Center Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (January 2002)

So that’s it folks, the best overall oil recovery rate for both land and sea is 44%, if land / weather conditions are worse, or sea weather conditions are worse during a major catastrophic spill , that recovery rate will drop dramatically! We should all be concerned about the low 41 % oil in water recovery rate, why?

Because the proposed Enbridge Pipeline will cross more than 1,000 creeks and rivers, and then that heavy tar sands oil, which no one knows whether it will float or sink in sea water, must navigate a very narrow, and island filled, Hecate strait.

So “world class” means recovering only 44% of all oil spilled… WOW!!!

Hmm… only 14% of oil spilled from the Exon Valdez was recovered.

*The effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on the Alaskan coastal environment. American Fisheries Society Symposium 18: 1-16; at p.4.

I like to learn something new every day. ;-)

It’s too bad that rhetoric doesn’t pay the bills.

“So “world class” means recovering only 44% of all oil spilled… WOW!!!”

Actually, you forgot to mention the date … 2002 … and, of course, they were spills before that date.

We have 2014 … and by the time the pipeline will be operational it will be pretty close to 20 years later.

With any luck, BC will have a UNBC PhD program in oil spill avoidance and recovery systems coupled with an oil spill avoidance and recovery technology program at CNC.

The expertise may have to come from the USA from people who have such experience in the gulf war when there was plenty of real life experience of intentional oil spills …. ;-)

“British Columbians end up assuming all the risks!”

Actually British Columbia’s environment will assume all the risk and that would be mainly the animal and plant life due to direct contact as well as indirect contact carried primarily by water.

I doubt anyone in PG will be affected other than if there is an economic impact which can be both positive and negative.

The thing is that with computers one can run amazing models of spill scenarios anywhere along the line to Kitimat. It will cost money to generate the computer models .. but that all adds to the mostly positive economic impact primarily accruing to places like Calgary, I would assume, until UNBC has that PhD program. …. ;-)

JB states; “It’s too bad that rhetoric doesn’t pay the bills.”

Yes that does expose your level of ignorance when you refer to; scientific study, and statistical review, from a world acclaimed oceanographic institution, as rhetoric!

I don’t think will get the following quote JB, but one can always hope.

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding it’s way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'” ~ Isaac Asimov

Good call on our current situation Mr. Asimov.

People #1:”Like the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline, this Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion will end up meeting the Lib-Cons five conditions.”

I suppose you mean (by Lib-Con) the BC Liberal provincial government.

Pray tell us what the other party (the one that did not get elected in the last election) would do in this situation!

No ducking the issue! Who will invest in BC to build competitive industry which is not resources based? Failing that are you in favour of not having any industry at all?

No rhetoric please, just workable positive alternatives which ultimately can pay the taxes for schools, hospitals and other vital stuff that we take for granted!

I am curious what you will come up with.

So, People#1 has no response other than name calling and thinly veiled taunts and insults. Big surprise!

Like PG has stated, I would like to hear what your workable alternatives are.

And why did People#1 not respond to gus’s posts? Am I your favorite target or something?

PG states; “Who will invest in BC to build competitive industry which is not resources based?”

Last I checked “OIL” is not a natural resource based in BC. “OIL” is an Alberta based natural resource, if they want to expand and diversify their market, they can ship that oil east, or south via the Keystone XL pipeline.

I don’t always agree with NDP policy and directions, but I am with them on this specific matter, “no to oil pipelines and no to oil tanker traffic off and on our BC coast. Keep the one oil pipeline, the Kinder Morgan pipeline at it’s current capacity and hope the 60 or so tankers a year don’t spill their crap all over our lower mainland coast and Gulf Islands shorelines.

Obviously you like to ignore the fact that the pipelines, storage and loading systems and maintenance do employ a considerable number of workers in B.C. – perhaps instead of attempting to deflect from the issue by pointing out the well known fact that the oil comes from Alberta.

However, shipping the bitumen/oil east has a lot of environmental dangers as well and there are already some organized groups who have vowed to prevent the bitumen from being piped in that direction.

Our industries in B.C. are mainly resource extraction based (except for pot growing and foreign students) like mining, forestry and natural gas. All of them cause some degree of environmental degradation and often irreversible damage. The challenge is to keep it to a minimum.

The last time B.C. said NO to everything it declined from #1 best in Canada to Have-Not status. Saying no is easy, but finding compromises which are acceptable to B.C., our neighbours and Canada as a whole is more challenging.

I predict that a compromise will be found.

PG states; “The last time B.C. said NO to everything it declined from #1 best in Canada to Have-Not status.”

Interesting… how do you get from me saying NO to oil pipelines and oil tanker traffic on and off our BC coast, to me, or BC, saying NO to “everything”? You asked me to respond without rhetoric, yet reply to me using it?

This is about what is at risk, and the degree of impact of those risks. We know there are natural resource industries that operate in our province, but when have those industries ever impacted our environment to the degree that oil spilled in our creeks, rivers and oceans would?

Forestry has never threated our salmon industry, or seafood industry, mining and natural gas the same thing! But this damn oil threat all of that and more.

Did you know that even now, after more than 20 years, the herring population, and industry, has never recovered from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. What other industry, than OIL devastates our environment like that.

Just look at the tar sands for goodness sake, Neil Young was right: it looks like a nuclear bomb went off there!!! You mention “some degree of degradation and irreversible damage” well wake up, what’s happening here is environmental degradation on an unprecedented massive scale!

Auto correct and the lack of an edit function on this site is frustrating.

“Threated” should read “threatened”.