BC lays out 5 "conditions for approval" of Northern Gateway

[jefg]

Originally Posted by Farmer

I guess my big question would be; does the petroleum industry have a set of these "world-leading" standards set fourth by some sort of professional organization. Plenty of them for different aspects of mining from CIM, SME, JORC, etc. So long as they are coming from professional organizations and not just what one company says are the standards, I feel that is adequate.


As far as the OP whining that "Northern Gateway Corp" is a way of Enbridge being cheap cunts, open your fucking eyes. That is how every single natural resource project (and probably a lot of other business as well) is done. This is largely for tax reasons, as well as liability. Fuck, my company only owns one mine and there are still 3 levels of companies who own the place.

a) Chill out, having a civil discussion here.

b) You admit it yourself that this is for liability reasons. Is that something we should accept from a company that is potentially exposing our entire north coast to massive environmental damage? If that should ever happen I would want the company to hang from the highest tree. There is too much at stake.

I'm all for economic development, but there is a reason for proper bonding and insurance when companies take on projects like this.

[CraigH]

Originally Posted by Farmer

I guess my big question would be; does the petroleum industry have a set of these "world-leading" standards set fourth by some sort of professional organization. Plenty of them for different aspects of mining from CIM, SME, JORC, etc. So long as they are coming from professional organizations and not just what one company says are the standards, I feel that is adequate.

Prior to BP's spill, it looks like they just kept using the same one and hope that no one actually read it or checked references.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ntingency-plan

[Farmer]

Originally Posted by jefg

a) Chill out, having a civil discussion here.

b) You admit it yourself that this is for liability reasons. Is that something we should accept from a company that is potentially exposing our entire north coast to massive environmental damage? If that should ever happen I would want the company to hang from the highest tree. There is too much at stake.

I'm all for economic development, but there is a reason for proper bonding and insurance when companies take on projects like this.

I guess I should have been more clear. By liability, I meant if a company owns 3 projects, and project A starts losing money, it doesn't effect projects B or C. Liability in a financial risk aspect, rather than a health / safety aspect.

[XXX_er]

Originally Posted by jefg

So today our government finally clarified their stance on the Northern Gateway project, after a lot of silence on the issue.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...k-gateway.html



One huge issue that heard reference to (I believe in a report by the ex-ICBC CEO), is that the bonding/insurance that "Northern Gateway Corp." has access to, is nowhere near the estimated costs of a spill. That and the fact that it's a shell corporation for Enbridge, basically absolving them of any major risk.

What say ye, NSMB?

living in the pathway of the proposed pipline having just spent a weekend in the douglas channel, actualy been up in the morice drainage and out on the north coast I gotta say its pretty fucking scary to think these "keystone cops" want to run a line and super tankers rigt thru the middle of the north coast and there is a reason why nobody has yet, the terrain the weather the possibilwe fuck ups ...its fucking scary

[backhander]

Although it may not feel it, you guys are lucky that your authorities are trying to put measures in place like this.
Here in the UK, it would have gone like this;
Oilguys; "we want to put in an oil pipeline"
Govt; "OK, pay us moneys"

At least yours pretend to give a ****.

[Knnn]

Originally Posted by XXX_er

living in the pathway of the proposed pipline having just spent a weekend in the douglas channel, actualy been up in the morice drainage and out on the north coast I gotta say its pretty fucking scary to think these "keystone cops" want to run a line and super tankers rigt thru the middle of the north coast and there is a reason why nobody has yet, the terrain the weather the possibilwe fuck ups ...its fucking scary

Yeah, I work in that area with the Kitasoo/Xai'xais nation and the weather up there between November and March just sux and the thought of those super-super tankers trying to navigate those tight waters is incredibly scary. Many people in the area live off what the ocean provides, which could all be taken away in a blink of an eye.

[tacklebox]

Not trying to start an argument here (Im STILL on the fence over this pipeline), but there is already a fair amount of large commercial vessel traffic out of Rupert and Kitimat,noteably carrying a fair amount of bauxite and coal.

Have there been any serious incidents with ships carrying these or any other goods in the waters "at risk" in the past 50 years?

The ferry that sank doesnt count btw...

[KenN]

Originally Posted by Hard Tack

Not trying to start an argument here (Im STILL on the fence over this pipeline), but there is already a fair amount of large commercial vessel traffic out of Rupert and Kitimat,noteably carrying a fair amount of bauxite and coal.

Have there been any serious incidents with ships carrying these or any other goods in the waters "at risk" in the past 50 years?

The ferry that sank doesnt count btw...

Bauxite and coal don't coat the ocean and every living thing when they spill. Nor to they emit toxic, carcinogenic vapours. Nor are they hauled in the largest oceangoing vessels ever constructed by humankind.

Kn.

[go-t]

Originally Posted by Hard Tack

Not trying to start an argument here (Im STILL on the fence over this pipeline), but there is already a fair amount of large commercial vessel traffic out of Rupert and Kitimat,noteably carrying a fair amount of bauxite and coal.

Have there been any serious incidents with ships carrying these or any other goods in the waters "at risk" in the past 50 years?

The ferry that sank doesnt count btw...

That is a good point; I'll be the guy to throw out the obvious counter to it though.

The vessels that have navigated those waters are pint sized compared to a ULCC.

[tacklebox]

Originally Posted by KenN

Bauxite and coal don't coat the ocean and every living thing when they spill. Nor to they emit toxic, carcinogenic vapours. Nor are they hauled in the largest oceangoing vessels ever constructed by humankind.

Kn.

I don't think that answers my question.

[tacklebox]

Originally Posted by go-t

That is a good point; I'll be the guy to throw out the obvious counter to it though.

The vessels that have navigated those waters are pint sized compared to a ULCC.

Fair enough,but they would be piloted by the same folks who currently run the ships through these waters,correct?

[go-t]

Originally Posted by Hard Tack

Fair enough,but they would be piloted by the same folks who currently run the ships through these waters,correct?

Again, playing the advocate - the pilot cannot change the size of the channel, so with an increased size of vessel there is still an increased risk.

[KenN]

Originally Posted by Hard Tack

I don't think that answers my question.

There have been a few, some quite recent ...

https://www.google.com/search?q=heca...w=1680&bih=812

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...article549938/

A recent Transport Canada study concluded the water is deep enough and the passages are wide enough. But residents are concerned about the margin for error. In four places, the route goes through channels less than two kilometres wide. At a minimum, supertankers need nearly half a kilometre in width for safe travel. They need 33 metres in depth; in one area, the route passes over a spot 35 metres deep.

Between 1999 and 2008, the routes Enbridge intends to use for Gateway tanker traffic experienced five major accidents in large vessels. Those include two "striking" accidents (where a ship contacts another object, like the shore or a dock), one instance of heavy weather damage, a grounding, and a grounding and a sinking. The latter is well-known: The Queen of the North lies buried deep in waters that supertankers would transit. It sank after hitting Gil Island in 2006. Two bodies were never found.

In 2009, the Petersfield, a bulk carrier sailing through Douglas Channel, also hit land after a failure in its navigation equipment. According to the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, "the vessel sustained extensive damage." Supertankers, however, remain among the safest vessels on the seas. According to the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Ltd., the number of large oil spills declined from 79 in the 1970s to 17 in the past decade.

However, with an oil supertanker we only need one accident to destroy an entire ecosystem, the livelihoods of locals who subsist on seafood, several rare and unusual species, and provincial and national parkland.

Kn.

[FlipFantasia]

looks like Alberta is seeing to one of the five requirements not happening....apparently more revenues to BC is "not in the national interest" according to Redford. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...-pipeline.html

"The Alberta premier said the additional safety measures proposed by Enbridge last week should quell any concerns about the environmental risk." uhhhh, yeah, sure, I totally trust enbridge as their track record is so spotless. This pipeline is dead.

[Couch_Surfer]

Originally Posted by FlipFantasia

looks like Alberta is seeing to one of the five requirements not happening....apparently more revenues to BC is "not in the national interest" according to Redford. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...-pipeline.html

So the immediate counter to that should be - well, it's been great talking with you, proposal rejected.

We're putting up the risk, there needs to be some significant reward for that. But it's Christy Clark, so I don't expect any leadership on the issue.