I have seen this in other publications and I think it is just alarmist bullshit. If you watch the company video, the Douglas channel is represented correctly, people just like to take this particular graphic and make a big deal out of it. The shipping of oil is not new, is not a big deal, and is extremely low risk. Oil has been shipped out of Vancouver for nearly a century , and out of Kitimat for more than 30 years with no problem. The port facility, tugs , pilots, land and air patrols, etc. are all very good high paying jobs. The Trans Mountain pipeline has been carrying oil for 60 years. Is it a less risky route? If a brand new pipeline with the latest technology and safety standards were built, one would think the risk would be low. If it wasn’t for the “keystone cops” antics in the Kalamazoo leak, I wouldn’t even have a problem with Enron.
No thanks. I don’t want another Exxon Valdez in my back yard. Extremely low risk?! Seriously?
I think it’s very telling that you mistakenly called Enbridge “Enron.”
Here’s the original company video. Take a look at about 1 minute into it, and tell me that’s represented correctly.
No thanks. I don’t want another Exxon Valdez in my back yard. Extremely low risk?! Seriously?
Classic NIMBY.
I think it’s very telling that you mistakenly called Enbridge “Enron.”
Yes, guilty. Freudian slip for sure.
I was referring to this video: northerngateway.ca/economic- … ety-video/
As I said before, I am not overly comfortable with Enbridge based on their track record at Kalamazoo, but I think many people think the sky is going to fall if this goes ahead.
[quote=“crazy Horse”]
Classic NIMBY.[/quote]
Classic ad hominem attack. 
Classic ad hominem attack.
I guess, but I just find it hypocritical that some people are OK with someone else taking risk for something that benefits us as long as it isn’t in their neighborhood. Or people that are against this project, but were OK with the pulp mill that didn’t just carry the risk of pollution, it spewed it for 50 years!
Being against something is fine, but we should be basing our decisions on sound analysis, not fear mongering. And if still opposed, offer an alternative.
Well, the point of this thread was to highlight an Enbridge video where they deleted the islands. That’s the subject of the thread anyway.
You seem to think they didn’t do this, even though this commercial has aired on TV. Haven’t you seen it?
I guess my point is that this particular video was not necessarily supposed to represent the coast accurately, and that the media is making a big deal of it. In other videos on the same web site where they are talking about the shipping in particular, the coast is illustrated more accurately.
And HTMF has seemed flat lately, needed some debate
Right, and I guess my point is that Enbridge deleted the islands off this video.
[quote=“crazy Horse”]
Being against something is fine, but we should be basing our decisions on sound analysis, not fear mongering. [/quote]
Thanks for acknowledging that your comment was an attack on me and did not logically counter my statement about the Valdez.
The possibility of a major oil spill like the Valdez is not fear mongering. The Valdez happened and it can happen again here on our shores. The risk to our shores far out weighs any monetary benefit derived from tanker traffic.
The risk is extremely low.
We risk getting hit by a car every time we cross the road, but you still do it. Or get on a boat or a plane. All are risky, but you weigh the risk and decide if you are going to leave your house or not. Using the Valdez argument is fear mongering, no less so than if you used the Titanic tragedy to say ocean travel is too dangerous and hitting an iceberg is a near certainty.
[quote=“crazy Horse”]The risk is extremely low.
[/quote]
Please define extremely low risk (I’m not sure how you would calculate the odds of an oil spill). Back up your statement if possible. You and I will agree to disagree on what an acceptable risk is. We only need one spill to destroy our coastal waters for a generation.
Thousands of oil tankers every year for nearly 100 years travel the west coast, and one major spill. Pretty low odds.
It is a risk that I find unacceptable. But, I think that I will not be able to convince you of that which is okay. Thanks for the debate. 
They seem to have a mapping problem. Here they presented one where a local creek appeared to go nowhere. Right at the cutoff point of the map, it entered into Stuart Lake right where there’s a marina, campground & motel. They got called on it by the locals.
WHOOPS!!!
Some review panel member in Ottawa would have no idea there’s a huge recreational lake with 4 provincial parks and a National Historic Site hidden just off the edge…
how convenient…
If you’re using chance as the only reason why we should not fear an environmental catastrophe, then you must be bat shit retarded.
It’s called math.
That is how you analyze risk/reward. We already know what the benefits are, and what the risks are. Then we use numbers to weigh the odds, using the track record. And then we make decisions based on that.
The question asked of me was " define low risk" …Will we have a spill or won’t we? Well obviously nobody knows, so we have to come up with a logical way to predict. And for that we use historical data.
Or “chance” in your world.
[quote=“crazy Horse”]It’s called math.
That is how you analyze risk/reward. We already know what the benefits are, and what the risks are. Then we use numbers to weigh the odds, using the track record. And then we make decisions based on that.
The question asked of me was " define low risk" …Will we have a spill or won’t we? Well obviously nobody knows, so we have to come up with a logical way to predict. And for that we use historical data.
Or “chance” in your world.[/quote]
There WILL be a spill even enbridge acknowledges it and given their history and lack of action when they know they have a leak its an unacceptable risk. To think otherwise is idiocy.
It looks like they hired the captain of the queen of the north to do their mapping I guess they cant find someone competent…
To say its broadly representative is a joke. The map looks like a stock photo so they intentionally deleted the islands and spent time and money to do so why would they do that if their intention wasnt to deceive?