Well yes IMO there is a need to be a dickhead when someone is spreading misinformation.

The video, much like the issue with the Kinder Morgan is all about unsubstantiated claims that oil residue and/or vapor is causing a small percentage of a people to fall ill.. or cause people to seizure at random, (Lacking any form or actual educated medical opinion or diagnosis) when they could for all we know.. be ... faking.. it... or suffering from some other unrelated illness.

"It's cloudy today and I have a headache... clouds caused my headache!" Obviously this is an extreme example.. but you get the idea.

I agree, it's not entirely impartial, but it's not terribly biased.

You and I have biases as well.

Auguston is very small, I would estimate the population as under 1200. Yes, only fifty people actually showed up, but that would be very near or at the capacity of Straiton Hall where the meeting was held. No mention in the article of it, but it's possible not everyone interested in attending was able to get in.

I read another article where a person reported two visits to the emergency room, because she was distressed by the symptoms.

As a reflection of the number of people who were ill, my friend, who is an RN, lives in Auguston with five other healthy people and they all felt ill. Speaking to her, she reports the symptoms were shared all the neighbors she spoke to.

They all shared the same symptoms, as far as I understand.

I'm for the pipeline, I just hope that BC gets some MASSIVE royalties for it. Considering we're taking the majority of the enviromental risk.

Like seriously, we should be making Alberta bend over. Because what's their alternative?

Alberta doesn't need an alternative, it's not in "Alberta's" interest, it's in the interest of the Country as a whole. Thats why it's the National Energy Board.. and not the Alberta Energy Board lol.

Don't expect BC to collect any royalties, beyond whatever percentage they already recieve at the Federal level through various taxes, royalties belong to the owner of the mineral rights who in this case would be Alberta.. but don't worry, Alberta basically does not collect royalties in the interest of promoting further constriction lol.

I don't agree that the majority of the risk is held by the province, at least not in the monetary sense, as the Fed gov would likely be providing most if not all of the funds/resources to handle a large scale clean up. But on the flip side, if you consider how it could impact the ecosystem long term, tourism, etc.. it's easy to see the long term indirect costs being quite severe to the province.

Keep in mind, it shouldn't be Alberta's sole responsibility to accept the risks of a large pipeline... the oilsands in Alberta are a major component in Canada's economy.. and without them nearly every single industry would suffer to some extent or another.


Mindbomber, I won't say that it's impossible some people got sick, anything is possible, but until some reliable information comes through in the media I will remain skeptical and hold my position on the matter. But let's just say that the vapors did in fact make some people sick... what's the outcome these affected individuals would like to see? Shut down the terminal? A cash settlement? Jail time for the workers?

Accidents happen, when you say that "Enbridge handled it poorly" I do not agree, their containment system worked as designed and they are communicating with the public.. what more should or can they do? The people who work for oil and gas companies are just normal people, they are not blood sucking vampires, they just want a good life for their families and certainly do not want to have any sort of accident... it doesn't help the oil companies make any money when the oil is pouring all over the ground they worked so hard to recover it from lol.

I dont quite see the dangers of running a pipeline through the wilderness as much as I see the dangers in a ship route. Our coast has lots of little islands and reefs and the such that could potentially cause an oil tanker spill.

Whereas a pipeline, whether buried or suspended/lifted would likely face less dangers - apart from possible breakages/bursts, sabotage and trees falling. However, I'm sure that the oil company and the government will do their best to prevent such accidents from occuring, there must be computer wiring monitoring the flow and mapping breakages in the line so they could be dealt with swifty.

For trees falling on the line, I figure the pipeline SHOULD be build strongly enough in theory.

This is my main concern, the pipeline these days are pretty top notch. I hope this pipeline goes through with the promise that if there is an accident, oil companies can be held accountable.

It's the oil tanker spills that worries me. There's very narrow passages in the Hecate straight and in the winter with all the ice and weather conditions, it's not reasonable to see something bad happening with those giant supertankers. Spilling 40-50 million litres of oil can damage fish, biolife and a whole ecosystem. BC has one of the best marine and rainforest ecosystems and I want it to stay that way.

IMO, I would like to see a limit on the size of tankers and to see smaller vessels go through there. I know Enbridge has said the tankers will be double-hulled and have tugs both front and back, but the weather up there is unpredictable, and I think smaller/medium size tankers should be used.

Regarding Auguston... here's a theory. It's the cold and flu season right now. Auguston is a small town, likely full of people who know one another and constantly see them whether it's at church, the convenience store, or where ever. Would it be possible that a few people got the flu and managed to pass it along to other people in the town and that it's merely a coincidence a line burst?

I'm not saying there's no corelation between the residents getting sick and a pipeline breaking, but there are other explanations for what may have happened.

I'm an avid fisherman and I support the pipelines. We all have natural gas piped to our homes and nobody is complaining about that.
Posted via RS Mobile

I work in this industry so I'm prob too biased to make any comments but you'd be surprised how moronic these environmentalists can be.

I haven't discounted that possibility.

The timing is just very coincidental.

Really, was that comment in any way productive?

At least retort a statement that's been made, before stating that they are moronic.


The only outcome I understand the residents desire is a less dismissive attitude by Enbridge towards the health concerns. Mass hysteria or a coincidentally time flu outbreak are certainly possible explanations for the symptoms, but equally probably, especially given the geography, is that the fumes caused the relatively minor discomfort. The CEO did address the residents concerns in the public meeting, but the attitude has overall been very much that it is not possible that the spill and symptoms are related, as one would expect from a large company covering it's back.

A justifiable cash settlement would be insignificantly small, the terminal has been there for sixty years and operates largely unnoticed, the workers certainly do not deserve jail time. I haven't heard calls for any of that, remember, this is Abbotsford, people are generally pretty level headed compared to some cities.

As two intelligent people, both with strong biases, we can certainly agree to disagree.

I am not talking about just a couple people, but there are 10s of THOUSANDS of people that work DIRECTLY with the stuff every day. If it got in their drinking water, I could completely believe the problems. Being near a spill? No, don't buy it at all. I have worked with people that have been around in for 15+ years, with no health issues other then getting old.

Jason your an asshole for not agreeing with the OP!

No, it's the way he went about it. There's no need to call people morons, idiots, whathaveyou. RS can be a better place. Nuff said.

I think you're backpedalling. I'm pretty sure your original comment was reference to the pipeline and thinking it would scar our landscape, until you realized that is a worthless argument.

Regardless,


What if there was no spill, ever? Have you ever contemplated that?

Read my original comment, I didn't reference the pipeline specifically, my statement is grounded in my assumption a spill will happen. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take, considering proponents of the pipeline and Kitimat terminal assume a spill won't happen.

I do not believe that the routing of the pipeline is well conceived, it is passing directly through an especially sensitive eco-system to maximize efficiency at the expensive of the environment. The impact won't be extremely significant from the pipeline, even if there is a spill due the expediency of a shut-off, but it exists and I do not support that. If BC chooses to say, nope, not cool, find a new route, it's not like the oil companies are going to abandon the idea. They'll re-route it through a less sensitive area, at the expense of their own profit margin, which I could really care less about. Due to the relatively minor impact of the pipeline though, I do not make that my primary point of contention, the possibly of a marine oil spill and the resulting damage is my biggest concern.. So...

What if there never was a spill?

Well, that's not how I look at any situation. I assume worst case scenario when analyzing risk, just like the major exploration companies themselves do when establishing the value of assets. The worst case scenario would be a major spill in inclimate weather, the effects would last decades, devastating the eco-system and dependent industries. The risk is not worth the reward, period.

You haven't got a clue, spouting your corporate rhetoric on the befits is repulsive, save it for the bloodsucking shareholders. The average Canadian will gain or benfit nothing from this proposed pipeline.

How so? You don't think that the pipeline workers, coating mills, steel mills, fitting mills, machine shops, heavy equipment companies, local towns that will support the labor during construction, permanent operations jobs, and increased oilsands production (And all the jobs and work associated with long term oil production) won't have any effect on the average Canadian?

Maybe you need a lesson in economics, Canada is a resource based economy, and every year the oil sands gets a bigger piece of the pie chart, the people that work in oil and gas (and support industries) do not spend their money buing bitumen.. they spend it on consumer goods, effectively stimulating many other industries.

I don't own a single share in any pipeline company, though I do own shares in oil and gas companies, and why not, people keep buying oil.. I keep making money? What's the problem. Last time I checked capitalism wasn't illegal (yet).

With regards to the "sensitive area" talk, I have seen that no matter where you run the pipeline, you will not be able to satisfy everyone. When they decide on a pipeline route it's not just "the cheapest way", there are many factors that go in to a proposed ROW, and I can assure you that dollar signs are a factor but no more so than being able to locate the pipeline in an area with some basic population and access for operations, consideration with regards to constructability, and most of all ... safety and environmental factors!

If you don't want the pipeline, stop using petroleum products, how can you be against the infrastructure when you contribute to the demand??? (Yes despite the fact that this specific pipeline is primarily for export, much of it will end up being used in consumer goods that will likely be shipped back to NA.)

I get a kick out of some the arguments around the job creation...

"Oh well, those thousands of jobs are only temporary" - yeah, ANY construction job is only temporary. Doesn't matter what you're building, sooner or later it will be finished, and you'll move on to the next construction job. This is the way it's been since the first caveman built the first rock-and-log skyscraper. Meantime, those construction workers will be able to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads for another two or three years... you go tell their kids that they can't have Christmas because daddy's next job will only be "temporary".

"Oh, sure there will be permanent jobs, but only about 50 of them" - yeah, that's 50 more families that get to eat and stay warm in the winter and have Christmas, too. In the grand scheme of things, sure it's a miniscule drop in a very large bucket... you go tell those families to their faces that they're insignificant.

It reminds me of an old poem:

The refinery point is an interesting one... you run into the same problem you have with log exports, in that your customers only want to buy the raw materials. Mills are up in arms saying that they should be cutting up the logs and then sending the finished lumber overseas, but if the customers don't want that lumber and can get the logs from elsewhere, you end up with a bunch of wood sitting around rotting. Likewise, you can process the bitumen and ship them the refined products, except they're not interested (or less interested) in the refined products... and you need those sales to repay the cost of building the refinery.

To put it in terms that this board can understand: if you're into building your own Skyline, you're going to want to buy all the parts separately... you're not going to be interested if Nissan will ONLY sell you the complete thing... so it's in Nissan's best interests to make the raw parts available to you.

Oil goes to whomever pays for it. They 'rent' the capacity of a pipeline to transport it; if the pipeline doesn't reach them, they 'rent' tankers to transport further by ocean. I'd bet my house some crude has made it to Asia through Burnaby.

It doesn't matter if these pipelines get built, it only changes the rental charges. That crude goes all over. These guys just want a bigger piece of the action.

Also, please 'Call Before You Dig'. If more people listened to what the pipeline companies tell them about where is safe to construct, there would be less oil spills landside. I think the only major risk is unstable terrain/earthquakes. Those tankers are coming, same number, just different ports.

I don't mind either way. Keep it in the ground longer and it'll be worth more; but the capacity is already available to ship more now.

Seriously, no one ever offers a solution. Everyone is protesting life. If you don't like it, go tribal. If you crave more of it, promote new nuclear technology, or at least stop protesting increasing Hydro capacity.

:okay:

Anyone catch the recent David Suzuki special on the Japan earthquake? He's on an anti-nuclear tear now... wonder what his alternative power source would be? The only other thing that's seriously viable for most of the world is fossil fuels (be it coal, gas, whatever).

I think he's probably pissed that he can't blame any of it on Global Warming<tm>.

1) Protecting B.C.’s coast is about protecting B.C. jobs. Right now, more than 45,000 people are permanently employed by B.C.’s coastal seafood and ocean recreation industries. We’re not just talking the fishing fleet, but also processors, anglers and tour operators. Enbridge says its pipeline and tankers project will create 560 jobs in B.C., so we’d be risking 80 jobs for every one we stand to gain. Why would we put the livelihoods of thousands of people at risk just so multinational oil companies can make a quick buck? We need to protect real jobs and the existing livelihoods of tens of thousands of British Columbians who support their families with the coastal economy.

2) Canada’s already got a bad case of Dutch Disease. When a currency becomes tied to the price of a single commodity, such as oil, due to a rapid surge in exports, it frequently causes job losses in the manufacturing sector. When this happens, it’s called Dutch Disease. A recent University of Ottawa study found that Dutch Disease is responsible for 42 per cent of currency-related job losses in Canada between 2002 and 2007 — that works out to about 140,000 jobs lost in Ontario because of the rapid expansion of the oilsands. Every time another oilsands expansion is approved, more jobs are lost in Ontario. Read our blog on Dutch Disease.

3) Exporting raw bitumen exports Canadian jobs. Recent polling shows 84 per cent of Albertans would prefer to see oilsands bitumen refined in their province. Further to that, 81 per cent of Albertans think the government should be taking steps to increase the amount of oilsands upgrading and refining provincially. Even the Alberta Federation of Labour, which represents 29 unions and 145,000 workers, has spoken out against Enbridge’s tankers and pipeline proposal because it would exported unrefined bitumen — and 50,000 high-quality jobs to China. We’re not prescriptive about whether new refineries should be built or where (because we believe local people should make these decisions), but one thing is for sure: it never makes sense to sell the wood and buy back the chair.

4) Half of Canada is reliant on foreign oil. Most of eastern Canada is currently dependent on foreign oil from declining or volatile reserves in the North Sea and the Middle East. If our government really cared about the best interests of Canadians, they’d be at least considering Canadian domestic energy security. Instead, they are selling off our non-renewable resources to foreign oil companies and pushing to allow them to ship it to Asia on oil supertankers through one of the last pristine places on earth.

5) What’s the hurry? As former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed says, why not go slower on oilsands/pipeline expansion and use the oil we have left in the ground wisely? After all, one of Canada’s top investors, the 85-year-old Stephen Jarislowsky, has said: “Long term, I think oil in the ground is a good asset.”

All of our crude oil is sold to North American markets, that is why we are tied to WTI and not Brent Crude.

1) The objective of the pipeline is not to create 560 jobs for BC residents, it's just a point of contention for the pipeline being built, a bargaining chip of sorts. In the event of a spill, as there may never be a spill, the spill would likely only impact a small percentage of that 45000 people you mentioned, as the majority of industry and population is far from the port at Kitimat.. and when the tankers would travel to Asia, they would not be travelling South along the coast where you would find most of these people.

2) 140000 Jobs lost due to the oilsands?... well being realistic these would have most certainly been MFG jobs, why don't you talk to the multinational MFG companys who shipped the jobs elsewhere to improve their profit margins? Canada's currency being tied to a commodity, a strong commodity, actually can be good for the Country, for instance it increases the financial security of the country in the eyes of investors, if you remove oil from Canadas economy, do you really think we would have our AAA ratings which allow us to borrow money at very low rates (via bonds, etc). Does it hurt exports, yes, but Canada's exports can hardly compete with the emerging markets... regardless of a sy 10c premium on our dollar due to Oil.

3) I wish they would ship more refined products out of the country, but at the same time, the key right now is to attract investment to develop the Oilsands. It is possible in the future for the Gov to crank up royalties and impose taxes for shipping raw bitumen out of the country... don't be surprised when this happens in XX years. Building refineries is very expensive and time consuming, even if they started building additional refineries ASAP we would not have anywhere near the refining capacity in Canada for the next two decades with the amount of oil being produced in the oilsands. Also with the concern you mentioned for the pristine coastline of BC, if you did build all these refinerys you would likely get a lot of negative feedback on emmisions from the enviro-crowd, and I dont blame them. Why not make use of the refineries south of the border, no point in using a retarded amount of resources to build a new refinery here when there are existing ones stateside that are sitting there a little to no production.

4) Importing oil is at the discretion of the company who sells it here domestically, if they prefer to import it from the Middle East, that's up to them... not the Gov... unless of course a socialist regime takes over.

5) Well, perhaps oil in the ground is a good asset for the time being, god forbid we ever get away from our addiciton to oil, you may regret not having sold it when you could have? Also, if you remove oilsands development from the Canadian economy over the last 10 years... how do you think that would have impacted the economy?

had to write this in a rush... but I think you present a fairly biassed perspective.

Edit: Was rushing when I wrote this, but just to touch on the importing of oil into Canada, remember the pipeline and the oilsands are not responsible for NAFTA, and in 1994 when this superseded the previous agreement, the then in-power Liberal party should have done a better job negotiationg the conditions related to energy...

You know, not to belittle the fact that environmental damage from a POTENTIAL (not CERTAIN) spill is a terrible thing all around... but when bullshit numbers like this get thrown around, it does nothing but damage the credibility of those abusing them.

Jason is absolutely correct - look at BC's coast on Google Earth and then look at what a tiny fraction of a percent would actually be affected by a spill in that channel. Opponents are talking like even the smallest leakage would destroy every inch of coastline from Puget Sound to Glacier Bay.

Of course it would be nice to do all the refining here and ship the processed fuels out... but what if your potential customer says, "we don't want the processed fuels, we want the raw material"? Are you going to just sit on it all out of spite? If you have a customer itching to buy your product, then you sell them the product that they want... you don't say, "you can't have it because we want to do more work on it first." It's the same issue the lumber industry is having right now - are you going to sacrifice logging jobs out of spite because the mills aren't getting work too? Try telling a logger he's got to go out of work because we're only going to sell cut wood that nobody is willing to buy.

Both are classic examples of cutting off one's nose despite one's face.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...k_%28en%29.png

It happens all the time. You make it sound like we're getting screwed. Everybody is a cog in the wheel looking for a piece of the pie.

There's nothing stopping you from making the chair. You just have to do it better than the other guys. It'd better be a great chair, though. Don't expect to sell it at Ikea.

A little OT: Chances are, if you hear something coming from a politician or someone who's a little too political, they are probably lying to you. That or they've been drinking their own piss for far too long. Don't let that be you.