I did not realize we had elected the "Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance". I do not even recall them being on the ballot

Which of course begs the question. Should an elected official support anything?

And and even more important question, is it appropriate for a group of 9 elected officials to support anything that a majority of them have agreed to support?

Gus, I think they will probably do a study!!! Danny boy knows nothing else!! He only know's how to launch studies!! Get out of town Rogers, you have know idea how to run a village, let alone a city!!

Is the pipe line coming through Prince George?? If it isn't, why is Danny boy taking a stand on it, one way or the other. Fix our roads Danny boy, fix our damn roads!!

One thing about having Dannyboy as mayor, we always know where our village idiot is.

Having said that, I have no problem with him showing support for one project or another, most in business know he has little to no influence.

Will the members of Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance please post pics of the vehicles you drive, a copy of your heating bills and transportation you are currently utilizing!
It would be a safe bet to say this is organized by the UNBC think tank where a majority of the SCA dont have familys or own a house they have to heat in the winter.
If you dont want piple lines and mines then stop consuming products.. We will se how far you get.
It really isnt a question of "if" this line goes throught its more like "when".

I'll bet I could find more than 600 people that support this pipeline.

Northman, this project is for the export of crude oil to the USA and Asia. It has nothing to do with what we British Columbians or even Canadians for that matter use for our own vehicles , home heating or what have you.

Lets keep the oil here, or maybe lets start exporting our water also.

Enbridge pipeline is dead..Sorry boys!

http://powellriverpersuader.blogspot.com/2010/03/gordon-campbell-erupts-in-anger-over.html

good for you mr mayor,unless we go back to riding horses the world needs oil and gas.
taxinapothole seems to have potholes on his brain,every year he puts the same old crap on here about potholes.it's the same in all northen towns,they have potholes to repair every year.

I'm so sick of listening to all the bitching! This pipeline will create thousands of jobs for 5 years and hundreds for years to come. Yes a oil spill is has deadly effect but you cant compare the products and construction of pipelines today to the ones built 21 years ago come on!

I support this project!

I thought our ex Mayor Colin Kinsley was the poster boy for the Enbridge Pipeline.

This line is all about having an altervative to shipping oil from the oilsands to the USA via pipeline which is what happens now.

Once they have an altervative, then they can bargain for higher prices. As it stands now, if the Americans dont take the oil is just stays where it is.

So the question is. Do we make it easier for Enbridge and the Oil companies to make bigger profits, or do we stop them cold in their tracks

Right on superdave and polar...

Guess what, there are pipelines everywhere, and they are statistically the safest way to transport the stuff that we all need, but refuse to admit.

All the people that are opposing this project tell me please; do you drive on our roads and highways? do you have a vehicle? do you heat your house with a furnace? do you take hot showers provided by a hot water tank? do you enjoy having these comforts available?

All these things and million's more are provided by our oil and gas and other resource industries. The companies that pay huge taxes to maintain our way of life and feed our families. So until your willing to sell your house build a teepee and ride a horse, stop trying to take the food off my families plate.

I really don't care much for Dan, but i support the pipeline. Lets open up the tap.

Get every tanker that fills up has to be in a consortium which has a 5 billion dollar bond for such a untinkable diasaster. Have a plan in place, Not run around and find equipment. Have a risk manager, and trained leaders in the program. The disaster of the EXXON Valdez likely would have been a lot smaller, if they had a plan that was ready to roll with in 3 hrs of it happening. It took them 7 days to get the equipment in place.

This alone will provide at least 300 permanent jobs year round.

Make the tankers take certain routes only. Pick the route which is the least hazardous. Tankers have been delivering oil all over the world. Its not nothing new, so why are we getting all huffed up about it.

It is not a matter if it is green or not. It is a matter of how to make it work so that it can be safe, and how to mitigate the potential risks. I don't think its impossible to resolve.

They still have tankers up and down the westcoast from Alaska, don't they?

"Yes a oil spill is has deadly effect but you cant compare the products and construction of pipelines today to the ones built 21 years ago"

Which reminds me, the same as with roads, its the ones that were built 21+ years ago that are the concern. We know we are generally doing a lousy job, not only in this city, of maintaining roads. Who is maintainging our pipelines. Hopefully they have better qualified people doing that.

From the link below ... in case anyone thought I was blowing smoke .... :-)

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- As BP shuts down its corroding pipelines in Alaska's North Slope, some analysts are wondering why the problem wasn't caught sooner and say that the company's problems foreshadow a larger mess with the world's aging oil infrastructure.

"It was almost guaranteed to happen," said Charles Clusen, director of the Alaska project for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "These companies have not been putting the money into infrastructure up there."

Fadel Gheit, an oil analyst with Oppenheimer & Co., said it is well known that oil companies in general haven't been spending enough on maintaining their pipelines, wells, platforms and other equipment.

"This thing has been in operation for more than 30 years," Gheit said of BP's North Slope field. "Corrosion has to happen. Something has to give. This is going to be a warning to other companies."

http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/08/news/economy/oil_infrastructure/index.htm

Maintenance .... everywhere you look, it is obviously not on many people's minds.

"They still have tankers up and down the westcoast from Alaska, don't they?"

Yes ... but they are disguised as a fleet of fishing trawlers .... no one has noticed them yet ... :-)

I don't support this project anymore. Its clear that we Canadians will have to pay the carbon credits on oil exports to Asia (as per Copenhagen), and why should we increase our domestic energy costs so that we can subsidize our competitors with our energy. They don't want to pay for their costs to the environment and want to pass those costs on to us (via Canadian carbon taxes for the production (to be paid for by the domestic economy))... we would be stupid to accept that as a good trade deal. The oil should stay in the North American market or not be mined at all IMO. For the long run that is the best thing we could do.

Government recently got rich in Alberta selling the oil sands to the Chinese, so we know its a done deal and the middle class Canadians will again pay the piper for multinationals and big government to have their cake.

I also don't support oil tankers on the BC inside passage.

If we have oil in the interior than we should build a pipeline, but otherwise we are just taking all the liability for a few short term contracts.

No Gus they are not allowed to travel the inside passage currently, and use the open ocean.

Is this going to end up like the wood pellet problem we are having. The mills are making the pellets, there are customers willing to purchase the pellets, but there are not enough ships to get them from the mill to the customer. So currently, there are not a lot of wood pellets being sold despite the supply and the demand.

Hopefully if this pipeline does get going, there will be enough ships to do something with it once it gets to Prince Rupert.

From corroding pipelines to corroding double hulled tankers.

"The group Douglas Channel Watch says this Petersfield incident is a striking example of the real dangers of allowing oil-tanker traffic in and out of the port of Kitimat. "We should all be deeply concerned about Enbridge's Northern Gateway opening up the North Coast to oil-tanker traffic," says Douglas Channel Watch member Dave Shannon."

" ... some assert it is too soon to tell how safe double-hulled tankers really are. Metallurgical engineer Dave Shannon has spent many hours researching the science behind the construction and chemistry of tankers. Shannon points out that the built-in features of a double hull cause them to corrode up to three times faster than the old single hulls they replace."

http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/03/18/TankerSafety

Are the tankers and the sea route the weakest link???

And yes, we are producing very expensive oil ansd selling it at the same price as the "easy" stuff from the Saudi Arabia part of the world. And part of that is being paid to carbon taxes which I believe are going to such projects as alternative energy development in return for carbon credits.

The bean counters are getting paid and are very happy ....

Isn't this pipeline to move natural gas to Kitimat and then liquify it for shipping?
To export BC natural gas?

About 30 coastal First Nations groups issued a declaration banning this planned oil tanker traffic.

They say that their ancestral responsibilities and laws required them to do so.

Three NDP MPs are going to introduce a private members bill on Friday calling for a ban of all tanker traffic along the west coast and the ocean between the Queen Charlottes and the main land.

No tankers = no pipeline. Game over.

Hm, we'll see I guess. As long as there is money to be made and palms to be greased, the game is never over.

Hey, what you expect from the NDP, who insisted on not burning Tweedsmuir Park to contain the pine beetles. Look at what their tree hugging ideals gave us.

The tankers haven't even run aground and we are yakking about it. The old pipeline gets shut down before it starts to leak, and they complain about it.

All you tree huggers and fish kissers should give up their vehicles, gas fired furnaces and electricity. If your gonna talk the talk, you better be able to walk the walk. Oh yeah no wood heat either if your gonna live here.

This is about exporting oil, and has nothing to do with whether or not we can still drive SUV and heat our homes from opposing this type of export. If this goes ahead it will increase our carbon output as a nation in the production of this oil sands oil. Something like 2 barrels of oil is used to produce a single barrel of oil. That carbon usage adds to Canada's national total of which we are committed to capping. Therefore in order to increase our carbon output to allow for these exports we will have to reduce by that same amount from the national economy. They plan to reduce the national output of carbon by taxing all carbon based energy in the national market. Therefor if we pass this export to a nation that refuses to pay a carbon tax and in which we will pay the carbon tax on twice what we export... then yes we very well may have to give up our SUV and heating our homes here in Canada if these exports go ahead because we won't be able to afford the carbon tax on the energy we use in our domestic economy subsidizing foreign usage.

IMO paying to subsidize a competitor countries energy usage to compete against us in the global markets is akin to surrendering our future economic competitiveness and our natural endowment of an energy advantage. That is what this pipeline is all about, but the politicians want the short term revenue and political spin and will never admit to this.

Oh and Exxon still refuses to pay for the environmental damage they did to Prince William Sound 20+ years ago when their tanker ran aground just off our coast. Clearly they have shown no responsibility for their actions... and the BP Alaska pipeline has in fact had serious oil leaks for years now... its only when environmental regulators got on their case that they agreed to close the pipeline.

Oil sands should only be used for the North American market as a security blanket against global instability. It should not be used to undermine the Canadian energy consumer at huge environmental costs to Canada. We don't need it... if we want jobs then we just need the political will to bring us back to a free enterprise economy and we will have jobs... selling out to globalist monopoly capitalists is for the short term greedy who have no care about our collective future as Canadians.

Time Will Tell

Something like 2 barrels of oil is used to produce a single barrel of oil.

----------

They use vast amounts of natural gas to cook the oil out of the tar sands.

Irresponsible madness...of course.

Unless you are like many Albertans or Americans...of course. Then it is totally alright!

Wait: Albertan OR American...birds of a feather?

Actually its 2 barrels of oil used (equivalency) to produce three barrels of oil... my mistake. Canada will pay the carbon taxes on the two barrels used to produce the three for export. So it will increase our carbon output 2/3rds for every barrel exported and that 2/3rds will have to be reduced in the Canadian national economy to met the carbon targets, and this will be done through carbon taxation of the Canadian energy markets to induce lower usage in the Canadian economy... thereby strangling the Canadian economy to pay for the ability to export energy to China.

That's what 'global warming' and 'globalization' are all about... transfers of wealth and productivity to the off shores where globalists can circumvent responsibilities. Useful idiots will claim otherwise and say its about jobs for Canadians....

If all the naysayers got lost in the forest, would anyone notice?

I hope everyone makes an effort to do some research and make an educated decision on this huge project. Huge reward= huge risk.

This route is not crossing flat land, but very unstable terrain (landslides, etc), and crosses 1000 streams. Remember Pine River? Or Minnesota? Pipeline failures are common.

200 tankers/year are needed to deliver this 36" pipeline in tankers bigger than the valdez. The queen of the north had ecological impacts with a fraction of the fuel. This is a very rugged port to enter.

This will allow a 30% increase in the tar sands when serious problems with the health of the local fish (tumors, cysts), wildlife (cancer), Athabasca river/lake, and further downstream (water levels are dropping fast due to climate change and industry needing 4 barrels of water for 1 barrel oil), not to mention very high rates of rare cancers in tar sands communities.

On the flip side there's jobs, taxes, profits, etc, and potential for pg to be a pipeline industry and service center. Not to mention potential to develop local oil resources.

But why are we in such a desperate hurry to liquidate this 'precious' resource? We're past peak oil- it's an appreciating asset. There are many other industries (fisheries, sport, tourism, water, health, wildlife) at stake. A proper cost-benefit and present vs future value analysis is needed.

I've reviewed this project and cannot support it in its present form, and urge friends and family to become informed.

I also hug trees and kiss fish. Every tree that crosses the scale and every salmon i've been fortunate to catch between here and the charlottes. This is great discussion and let's get it right!

This is a cold Place here, may not be such a bad Idea to keep some of this Oil for Future Generations , what is the big Rush to sell?

There is not much that mayor Dan Rodgers does right, but supporting the pipeline is one of his few good decisions.

Who are the Sea to Sand gang? They sound like a bunch of whako planners and environmentalists.

Its funny how badly most people misunderstand the oil industry and this project in particular. Many posters have posted outright lies here.

Eagleone, stop wringing your hands worrying about how we'll pay for carbon offsets - we won't. Thankfully, Copenhagen isn't worth the paper its printed on. It's about as effective as Kyoto was. Besides, carbon offsets are a scam, didn't you hear? Heres the link: http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/12/11/eu-carbon-credit-trading-fraud.html

You are right the oilsands use natural gas for fuel. We have lots of natural gas. Too much in fact. The stuff is worthless and getting cheaper, pick up a paper and look for yourself. Now consider the US just started tapping huge new gas fields in New England - our biggest market. That means if we don't find a use for all our gas geared to supply the bulk of the US, we won't have a gas industry left. Keep in mind its gas that's keeping this province afloat right now. So the oilsands will replace lost US customers.

Second, oilsands upgrading produces huge quantities of petroleum coke which is currently underutilized. Suncor plans to build a gasifier to turn the coke into fuel gas, thus reducing energy input massively.

Third, tankers ARE allowed to access BC waters. Is there a federal moratorium preventing tankers from transiting BC’s coastal waters?

No. Large vessels carrying petroleum are permitted to enter BC ports and waterways.

In fact, over the past 25 years, 1,500 tankers carrying petrochemicals safely entered Kitimat Harbour. And last year, the Port of Vancouver handled more than 180 tanker calls carrying oil, jet fuel and gasoline.

There is a voluntary tanker exclusion zone that keeps tankers moving between Alaska and Washington State away from the BC coastline, but this would not apply to ships entering the Northern Gateway Terminal or other BC ports.

Companies are in a hurry to sell oil because we got lots. The lies about oil running out are just that. Look at any hippy book from the 70's - the same lie was circulating then. It never came true and never will. You don't make money standing around saying "gee we lots of oil" You make money putting it in a barrel and selling it.

If we were smart, we'd be pushing for an upgrader north of PG near the pipeline. The city would cash in huge.

The Anchor Loop project saw a pipeline go through Jasper just last year. They did a great job. You can't even tell its there. What's the big deal?

Sure spills happen, but our houses are heated with gas or propane, at least as a backup and our cars all have a full tank, so quit being hypocrites and get with the winning team. I think that covers everything, I'll deal with lame excuses as they come up.

The minimum that would have to be done to get my support would be answers to the following.

We know this country will have carbon limits... we know that this will cut into those carbon limits unless we see savings in the rest of Canada's economy... we know there will be taxes to help reduce Canadian consumption to met those limits... we know that the developing world where the vast majority of this oil will go (dirty oil) is not in anyway planning on paying for a carbon tax or anything remotely similar... the third world would rather have an economy that functions to tax, than to tax their fuel for their economy... we know that if a country can subsidize its industry with lower energy costs to gain a competitive advantage then they will when working in their national interests.. especially when they already use the environment, human rights, and slave labor as a way to gain competitive advantage.

So why not an export carbon tax... its been brought up before for the Americans and that wasn't supported by our globalist politicians... but what about for non-NAFTA export to countries that are not planning on participating in any global carbon tax... a tax that decompetitivives the taxed economy when we live in a carbon based economy should not be something we bare the burden for while they get a carbon tax pass?

Why not put the export carbon tax on the product, at export, to cost in their fair share to our equivalency in carbon tax... then distribute this tax to the regions that the pipeline transits at a per/mile/population rate that can be further distributed by the regional districts to the municipalities in the region on a per capita basis to replace property taxes for home owners and industry in funding the needs of our municipalities...?

That would go a long way towards getting my support, because then at least I know its not a scheme to subsidize my economic competitors at our economies future expense to support a competitor that undermines my Canadian values (ie democracy, human rights, environment ect). That would be a starting point, and then at that point I think its ok to move to the next step of looking at the environmental implications for Canada. Obviously though we know enough about how short sighted our politicians are that none of this will even be considered....

Time Will Tell

:)

what a bunch of doom and gloom.
get the pipeline going and create some work around here,the unemployment rate is up over 10% in this town,must be higher in kitimat and mackenzie.

Gamblor, I'll be waiting for your reply. What do you think.. subsidize our competitors, or protect our own national interests?

Give it a month and the unemployment will be different. They will be talking about bringing in 747's of Chinese workers paid a dollar a day to do the work. Most of the mills closed will be opening again in the next few weeks, and then we will be talking about labor shortages again.

Stop thinking carbon taxes. The idea of taxing carbon ended the last Liberal leader's career. Canadians don't care about carbon. Carbon is your friend.

The economic engines of domestic oil & gas extraction and international consumption more than pays for itself. It worked for Norway, it works for us. This pipeline gets us off the American teat - that alone should sway most people.

I bet you find most of those against the pipeline are on welfare and have no interest in jobs for themselves or others.

I'll bet you would not

I think many of the previous commenters would be surprised to know that the Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance is made up of informed, educated, and proactive individuals who have a tremendous amount of support behind them.

Contradictory to what several posters ignorantly assumed, those against the pipeline come from an incredibly wide array of background. A vast majority are NOT on welfare and DO have an interest in jobs for themselves and others, but do NOT see the traditional methods of the exploitation of natural resources as the only way to create jobs.

Oh, and to those of you who didn't catch the coverage on CKPG, supporters who delivered the petition took public transit or rode bikes, not SUV's to city hall.