Please don't forget that off the west coast of BC, there is a plate boundary and an earthquake zone. It will be very dangerous to ship oil in that area.

An errant meteor might strike a ship as well. Too risky.

Our ancestors would be disappointed at the wusses we've all become.

Sorry Chief Luggi, it is different situation. Unless Enbridge is going to put the pipeline down 5000 ft, it is comparing apples to oranges.

There is no technology in common between the drilling rig off Louisiana and the Enbridge pipeline. Yes, there are risks for the Enbridge project, especially in the marine transportation but the hazards are not the same. To get up on a soap-box about the pipeline in the aftermath of the well blow-out is pure theatre.

"Luggi says he is not against trade and commerce, “What we’re thinking is, there is infrastructure in place to deliver oil to the United States, the Americans are addicted to oil and so it makes sense to use the infrastructure to deliver the oil to the U.S. "

So Mr. Luggi would rather see that oil go over somebody else's 'traditional lands'. Pretty NIMBY attitude if you ask me.

Oh great, now how many beads do they want

I'm with Mr Luggi on this one. We don't need to subsidize China with cheep energy to compete with us with if it means we will have super tankers navigating our coast and pipelines posing huge risks to our watersheds. If the Americans want the oil, then fine the infrastructure is in place... I see no reason why we need to do this for Chinese oil consumption though. Furthermore why should we be stuck with the Chinese carbon tax bill, so that we can put all our water resources at risk to subsidize them? It makes no sense other then to generate revenue for a special interest that includes government bureaucracy. Our ancestors were smart when they put a moratorium for oil and gas on our coast.

It does show that the environmental impact of the oil sands is in nowhere near the same magnitude of off shore drilling. I would like to point out that the use of the term "Tar Sands" is incorrect and used by the environmental extremists to automatically give the article they refer to it in, negative connotations. The oil sand is exactly that, thick crude oil particles bonded with water and sand.

I personally am opposed to selling any of our resources to China that are not processed fully in Canada, or to the US for that matter. The risk of creating the pipeline is not in the same category as the offshore drilling, but I am concerned about ships travelling in through the coast to get loaded with oil and go back through to China. I would like to see the preventative measures undertaken to counteract these risks.

I have to agree with Eagle One's comments.
The prospect of a spill in the Douglas Channel or elsewhere along our coast is too daunting to take the risk. It WILL happen, eventually, if we allow supertankers into our waters. Human error is inevitable, no matter what safeguards are in place. The BP disaster in the Gulf is proof positive.
metalman.