Stop the pipeline, save the environment….problem solved
regime or not, rules or not, once the oil spills, and it will, it is too late, no amount or kind of cleanup in the world is ever going to make it right again.

but I think the govermnet has already made the okay for the pipleline behind doors we will nver know about.

and everthing we see from now on is pretending to care.

Northern Gateway is nothing more than a revenue center for Enbridge. Northern Gateway is a limited liability subsidiary corporation that will be milked for every dollar and carry limited insurance of its own.

One spill from the Northern Gateway pipeline in a remote location in the dead of winter will bankrupt any non profit public entity tasked with world class clean up operations. The cost as in this report will fall on the province to pay, which if a Kalamazoo size spill with be 30-times the total revenue payable to the province over the 30-year life of the project.

This is a classic case of corporate welfare from the people of BC to the foreign state sovereign funds that will be harvesting our resources.

The most insulting part is the report assumes that it will be the people of BC as the financial back stop of last resort… when its Harper’s federal government pushing the Northern Gateway pipeline, and it is the federal government that has the constitutional obligation to regulate and protect national waterways… yet the federal government has no financial risk?

Is this just a way to dissolve the federal government of its constitutional responsibilities and the costs associated with the risk of an oil spill, while giving the appearance that the provincial government is acting in good faith?

Nothing in the report about producers and shippers carrying sufficient liability insurance to cover any potential spill scenario for export related oil sands.

Why can’t they pay the full cost of the risk if its such a great economic bonanza? Why does the province have to assume the cost of the risk?

I agree with eagleone, the people of this province or Canada for that matter, should not have to bear one penny of the cost of cleaning up a spill. The companies involved should have to either purchase a bond or insurance to cover that.
Any cleanup should be tightly supervised by either federal or provincial inspection, whichever is more strict and local people should have a say in whether or not it has been cleaned up.
The horrendous coverup in Kalamazoo should serve as a reminder as to what this company is capable of. There should also be no court action allowed to try and absolve the company of responsibility.
It should also include the EEC out 200 miles into the open ocean.
Otherwise, the people should have the right to say no to this project.

Railways, Pipelines, that cross Provincial Borders come under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. So do Ports, and the Coast.

So what is the responsibility of the Provincial Government.??? Are they getting involved in clean up etc; to this degree, so that they can say YES to the pipeline??

Looks like a cop out plan for Christy.

There’s already a oil pipeline through the Pine Pass and one through Jasper Park. What do we do about those? Shut those down as well?

who are the stakeholders they consulted? and this doesn’t sound like a “Plan” it sounds like a plan to get other people to plan what to do?

“….proposing a provincially-certified, industry-led non-profit organization to conduct spill planning and preparedness activities, as well as incident management and spill response when activated by a spiller or the Province”

So the company that is building the infrastructure and running a for profit business should have the spills that it causes due to bad design, construction and/or operation cleaned up by a not for profit?

Unbelievable!!!!!!

JB is right, we already have an interprovincial oil pipeline …. how about putting those 3 points in place right now!!!!! Don’t wait for Enbridge. All those items they are suggesting should have been in place a long time ago.

How little we know about the people who are working in Plaza 400 and what little they actually do. I would have expected better.

If its endbridges SOP for oil spills its easy

1. Ignore
2. Deny
3. Blame someone else

What’s the issue with a none profit?

Hopefully everyone will submit to this “idiotic” plan!

They forgot to include #4

#4. Taxpayers not to be held financially responsible in any way shape or form for any spills and cleanup of those spills. Industries responsible to be solely responsible for all financial aspects of spills and cleanup.

In this case the not-for-profit society is supposed to “conduct spill planning and preparedness activities, as well as incident management and spill response when activated by a spiller or the Province”

That puts post spill liability directly on that organization.

There are companies that do this as a business that are hired to be prepared to respond to such incidents world wide, have trained staff ready to go anywhere, do the preparedness planning, and so on.

Part of the condition to operate in BC for companies that have operational spill potential must be to show that they have the finances to cover the cost of a spill and have contracts in place with acceptable companies at all times.

We do not need neophyte organizations in charge.

Here is an example
http://www.oilspillresponse.com

Quoted from Red Adair, the famous global oil well firefighter

“If you think it’s expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur.”

http://www.redadair.com/images/name-plate.png

“They forgot to include #4

#4. Taxpayers not to be held financially responsible in any way shape or form for any spills and cleanup of those spills. Industries responsible to be solely responsible for all financial aspects of spills and cleanup.”

Then I guess they better add number 5: the taxpayer shall in no way benefit from any jobs, taxes collected, royalties, road upgrades, infrastucture or any other benefit from industry.

We have entered into the era of user fees, even to the extent of paying for the water which falls from the skies onto our properties and may or may not drain into the storm drainage system.

We have also entered into the era of not cleaning up after ourselves as individuals, so we have to get good Samaritans to do that for us or pay for it to be done through taxpayer supported City operations.

The principle of companies cleaning up after themselves may be hard for some to understand, especially for companies that don’t.

This is an appropriate application of user fees. Pay a user fee for the land based on the environmental costs as they occur and put up bonds/insurance which will pay for potential future incidents.

It is our land, just as the owner of a building which has office spaces in it expects to receive rents for those spaces and expects to recover for any damages that is caused by the renter of those office spaces as well as any other work which goes into it to support the renter …… and make a PROFIT at the end of the day!!

Why should the province (that is us) be so stupid as to be any different from the building landlord?

Ever hear of Kevin O’Leary?

It’s ALL about the MONEY …. ;-)

Three pronged approach? Hmm? If the headline read “Trident approach….” Some or a lot of people would be confused in thinking “Submarine approach….”? If it was a four pronged approach…” Some folks would think “pitchfork approach….”? I love the English language.

Still don’t see the difference between a not for profit or profit. Any factual examples? Is a for profit search and rescue organisation better than a volunteer organisation?

This is not search and rescue. I find the comparison is inappropriate.

BTW, I thought I gave two examples previously. One is to a company that works world wide and is on the call at all times. The other should be familiar to those who follow oil well fires.

Three pronged approach? I guess bending over once isn’t good enough anymore. Now we have to do it 3 times.

They must be shooting for that “world class” 44% oil spill recovery rate people#1 commented about a few months back. Sure do miss his/her comments.

blog/view/31025/78/bc+gov't+wants+say+on+kinder+morgan+pipeline+proposal

@BeingHuman, so you’re pretending you’re not People#1? Who are you trying to fool?

So would the for profit outfits have resources prepositioned? What would their callout time be? What if they are already tied up on another issue. How much would standby time be compared to a nonprofit? Lots of questions.

So obviously part of the plan to soften up public opinion for a controversial new pipeline.
We are supposed to swallow this feel good pap and trust in our political leaders.

Sure, when pigs fly.

The big ideas the provincial government has apparently just come up with, that of an effective response to any spill, and that the industry operating the line and its contents is responsible for costs related to clean up, are basic no brainers which should have been (generally) assumed to be standard procedure already.

Who paid for the clean up in the Pine Pass 14 years ago when an oil pipeline blew out? Pretty sure it was Pembina, the company who had just assumed ownership of the line within a year or so of the leak.
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/eemp/incidents/earlier/pembina_00.htm

Sorry, don’t know how to make that a clickable link.
metalman.