And you could be the best driver ever, and have another bad driver cause an accident involving your vehicle.
Isn’t this what happened here? Another boat actually caused the accident, not the container ship?
Isn’t what we should be questioning the story surrounding this accident? How exactly does a giant container ship go about moving to avoid a small fishing vessel? Those ships don’t turn on a dime, and they don’t run aground from swerving to avoid stuff. This isn’t like when a dog runs out in front of your car and you swerve to avoid it.
For a ship this size to run aground on a sand bar they have to be off course in the first place. Perhaps this is what the Transport people will discover when they investigate.
[quote=“MiG”]
Saltybear are you really Bill Belsey, as someone suggested earlier? If not, I don’t know if that was an insult to you or Mr. Belsey.[/quote]
Hahahaha. 
Zing!!
Oh come on! Everyone knows oil tankers only crash in third world countries. Just like ferries.
Besides they can send divers to hammer corks in the holes every 30 years or so if one sinks.
Why am I not surprised that the soapbox is at max capacity over this one…
At this point nobody really knows what happened and comparing this to what could happen to a tanker is not comparing apples to apples.
But the soapbox has an audience…
My real itch with people stuck in the just say no camp is they are complete hipocrits (IMO).
Like it or not oil touches everyones lives- and they use more than their fair share.
But lord help you if its in their back yard…
Seems like they can live the fact that a murder took place but they just don’t want the body in the trunk…
Heres what I need;
Give me a viable option.
Add credibility to your cause- reject oil (the amish may be able to help you with this) and live with out it. If you start now I will expect no further responses electronically (or in print for that matter).
But the soapbox is always too enticing…
[quote=“rupzuk”]Why am I not surprised that the soapbox is at max capacity over this one…
At this point nobody really knows what happened and comparing this to what could happen to a tanker is not comparing apples to apples.
But the soapbox has an audience…
My real itch with people stuck in the just say no camp is they are complete hipocrits (IMO).
Like it or not oil touches everyones lives- and they use more than their fair share.
But lord help you if its in their back yard…
Seems like they can live the fact that a murder took place but they just don’t want the body in the trunk…
Heres what I need;
Give me a viable option.
Add credibility to your cause- reject oil (the amish may be able to help you with this) and live with out it. If you start now I will expect no further responses electronically (or in print for that matter).
But the soapbox is always too enticing…[/quote]
The benefits for us is not worth the risk. This oil is not coming for our consumption, it is for Enbridge to gain massive profits by sending it to Asia. How bout we keep some more of our oil so our prices go down. Is there any country in the world that is a net exporter of oil that pays anywhere near what we pay for gas?
[quote=“chookie”]
[quote=“rupzuk”]Why am I not surprised that the soapbox is at max capacity over this one…
At this point nobody really knows what happened and comparing this to what could happen to a tanker is not comparing apples to apples.
But the soapbox has an audience…
My real itch with people stuck in the just say no camp is they are complete hipocrits (IMO).
Like it or not oil touches everyones lives- and they use more than their fair share.
But lord help you if its in their back yard…
Seems like they can live the fact that a murder took place but they just don’t want the body in the trunk…
Heres what I need;
Give me a viable option.
Add credibility to your cause- reject oil (the amish may be able to help you with this) and live with out it. If you start now I will expect no further responses electronically (or in print for that matter).
But the soapbox is always too enticing…[/quote]
The benefits for us is not worth the risk. This oil is not coming for our consumption, it is for Enbridge to gain massive profits by sending it to Asia. How bout we keep some more of our oil so our prices go down. Is there any country in the world that is a net exporter of oil that pays anywhere near what we pay for gas?[/quote]
Why would our price go down? BC is supplied by Canadian crude and that doesn’t make our prices lower. Norway is a net exporter and pays way more than us for gas. In fact those countries that pay very little for gas are state subsidized.
[quote=“rupzuk”]
Give me a viable option.[/quote]
Refine it in Alberta. That’s a viable option. A new refinery going into Fort Saskatchewan next year, in fact.
So what you’re saying is either we have the pipeline or we live like the Amish? Those are the only two options? I think you need to get off the soapbox and look at other options.
Right now, we don’t have the pipeline, and we don’t live like Amish. Why do you think we need to live like the Amish if we don’t have it?
So is the false dichotomy. There are more than two options (pipeline or Amish). How about you do what you suggested, and think up some more options yourself?
heh heh… I think his comments are "truly " funny
[quote=“rupzuk”]Why am I not surprised that the soapbox is at max capacity over this one…
At this point nobody really knows what happened and comparing this to what could happen to a tanker is not comparing apples to apples.
But the soapbox has an audience…
My real itch with people stuck in the just say no camp is they are complete hipocrits (IMO).
Like it or not oil touches everyones lives- and they use more than their fair share.
But lord help you if its in their back yard…
Seems like they can live the fact that a murder took place but they just don’t want the body in the trunk…
Heres what I need;
Give me a viable option.
Add credibility to your cause- reject oil (the amish may be able to help you with this) and live with out it. If you start now I will expect no further responses electronically (or in print for that matter).
But the soapbox is always too enticing…[/quote]
How is not wanting OUR oil, exported through UNTOUCHED LAND, not benefiting from it what so ever, but still driving fossil fuel powered vehicles make us a hypocrite? As Mig said, refine the oil, so it’s less harmful if spilled, and it brings jobs to CANADIANS, for more than just until the project is finished! How many people will be working on the pipeline AFTER it is built? How many jobs will that be? Seems far more viable, environmentally and economically sound, and makes more sense than pushing a pipe through untouched land to fill oil tankers with crude oil and shipping it through one of the most dangerous shipping routes on the west coast.
Call me a hypocrite if you like. (and yes, that is proper way to spell it, Google is your friend. 
) But I will stand on my soap box, and say NO to Enbridge until there is a more viable option produced.
[quote=“bubbasteve735”]
and it brings jobs to CANADIANS, for more than just until the project is finished! How many people will be working on the pipeline AFTER it is built? How many jobs will that be?[/quote]
Here is an argument that I can never understand. This would be the largest privately funded construction project in the history of BC. Construction projects by their very nature only last until they are finished, this goes for highways, bridges, houses, hospitals, etc. So to use this as an argument implies all construction jobs are pointless.
And I don’t disagree that refining it at the source would be nice, but none of the refineries in BC or Alberta are set up to refine heavy crude. And we already refine all of the gasoline we use, so that leaves shipping it to refineries set up for heavy crude; Gulf coast or Asia. The only other option I see is to upgrade it and pipe it to eastern Canada. But remember, this is a commodity and will be bought and sold on the markets. If it can’t be shipped east economically, then the refineries there won’t buy it.
Heavy crude? Or Bitumen?
If it’s coming from Northern Alberta, it’s Bitumen, and that’s definitely being processed in Alberta, and capacity is definitely being increased.
[quote=“MiG”]Heavy crude? Or Bitumen?
If it’s coming from Northern Alberta, it’s Bitumen, and that’s definitely being processed in Alberta, and capacity is definitely being increased.[/quote]
Either. Western refineries are set up for light crude. Heavy or bitumen are not refined here. Some bitumen is upgraded to synthetic crude, but most goes to the US.
So you’re argument is that because we don’t do it, we can’t?
At least the bean counter neo-con argument is that because we don’t it’s cheaper to let foreigners refine it. (Better to work at Wendys and have cheap stuff than make $100K a year and pay 3c more for stuff made here - it makes sense to many people)
[quote=“herbie_popnecker”]So you’re argument is that because we don’t do it, we can’t?
At least the bean counter neo-con argument is that because we don’t it’s cheaper to let foreigners refine it. (Better to work at Wendys and have cheap stuff than make $100K a year and pay 3c more for stuff made here - it makes sense to many people)[/quote]
Well I’m not really making an argument, I would like to refine everything in this country too. But as I understand it, that is just not feasible. All of our refineries require light oil to refine. We upgrade some bitumen to synthetic light crude, but we can only use so much. We refine more than we use now. And production of bitumen increases all the time and there are people that want to buy it. One plan was to build a bunch of up graders and pipe out synthetic crude, but that plan has been pretty much shelved because of the huge costs to build the up graders, when there are refineries that are capable of refining it as is. Some say leave it in the ground then. Well, our economy couldn’t handle a shut down of that magnitude. Somehow this stuff is going to get to market, the only question is by which route. There is huge resistance to Northern Gateway, and it will probably die off. The other options are twinning KM to Burnaby, or Keystone to the USA.
Um, you know there’s a new refinery and upgrader being built next year in Fort Saskatchewan, right? Hardly ‘shelved.’
And that 3 of the refineries near Edmonton all handle Ft. McMurray bitumen? Not to mention the 4 different upgraders? And the one in Lloydminister as well?
google.ca/search?hl=en&gl=c … n+refinery
Saying Alberta refineries can’t handle bitumen from Alberta isn’t correct at all. And it’s certainly no argument for building the pipeline to Kitimat.
We do it now. We can do it.
And if you’re going to spend billions of dollars on a pipeline to take jobs to China, might as well spend those billions to keep the jobs in Canada. Sending crude oil to China is the equivalent of sending raw logs to China.
[quote=“MiG”]
Um, you know there’s a new refinery and upgrader being built next year in Fort Saskatchewan, right? Hardly ‘shelved.’
And that 3 of the refineries near Edmonton all handle Ft. McMurray bitumen? Not to mention the 4 different upgraders? And the one in Lloydminister as well?
google.ca/search?hl=en&gl=c … n+refinery
Saying Alberta refineries can’t handle bitumen from Alberta isn’t correct at all. And it’s certainly no argument for building the pipeline to Kitimat.
We do it now. We can do it.
And if you’re going to spend billions of dollars on a pipeline to take jobs to China, might as well spend those billions to keep the jobs in Canada. Sending crude oil to China is the equivalent of sending raw logs to China.[/quote]
The original plan 4 years ago was to build an additional 9 or 10 up graders. That isn’t going to happen. That new up grading you mention is going to produce diesel, not light crude. And you still haven’t explained who is going to buy the synthetic crude. It is easy to say “spend those billions here and keep the jobs here”. Well, just because we wish for something doesn’t make it happen.
Well, at least you’ve dropped your “we can’t refine it here” argument. Because we already refine it here. And the capacity to do so keeps increasing.
Who do you think is buying the synthetic crude now? Why do you think they’ll stop buying it if we don’t ship to China first?
Lots of demand for it in North America, no need to send it to China.
Not to mention Quebec and Alberta now talking about shipping some of it to Eastern Canada.
The only winners in a Kitimat pipeline are Enbridge and China. Great if you work for Enbridge or China, but not so great for everyone else.
The truth is that there are a lot of alternatives to the Northern Gateway, but its proponents keep arguing that it’s somehow mandatory, and needs to be built, or the sky will fall (or we will all have to turn Amish). That isn’t true.
Even Enbridge thinks it could use an existing pipeline to send oil to Eastern Canada.