I really hope that when Adrian Dix and the NDP say “no tankers, no pipelines” on the North Coast, they mean no OIL tankers or OIL pipelines. Hopefully LNG development does not get lumped in with that.
What difference does it make if it’s an oil system or a gas system? Seems like one wouldn’t be too picky if it means bringing in good paying jobs.
[quote=“rinkster”]
What difference does it make if it’s an oil system or a gas system? Seems like one wouldn’t be too picky if it means bringing in good paying jobs.[/quote]
The difference being one (oil) is MUCH more of a danger to the local environment than the other (natural gas). There is much more of an argument to be made on the anti-oil side than there is on the anti-natural gas side. With the NDP being anti-oil…i just hope they don’t lump LNG into that same category.
I agree on bringing in more good paying jobs…both types of projects will lead to a HUGE amount of jobs.
For me personally…I care what impacts our city the most and that would be LNG as there are 6 terminals currently proposed for our local area.
Enbridge seems like an environmental and job destroyer while LNG will create many jobs, its much less risky for the environment, and can be a major economic driver. No to oil, yes to gas.
Agreed. I’m hoping that LNG development goes forward and keeps on track.
I’m not sure on what basis any gov’t entity could allow one over the other, but you can be assured that if gas is allowed and not oil (or vice versa) it will go through the courts forever and eventually either none or both would be allowed.
First, let me preface this by saying that I am not making any political statement about the election. I am just asking questions after reading this article by Rafe Mair. And I realize that Rafe Mair isn’t everybody’s favourite guy and that he has an environmental bias and he hates the Liberals. But I don’t think his observations can be ignored or brushed aside without discussion.
thecanadian.org/item/1935-rafe-o … lng-scheme
-
How dangerous is fracking? I know it has been going on for dozens of years, but it must be happening far more often now. Are we running the risk of using up water supplies? Are we threatening our drinkable water tables? Are we damaging the earth’s crust? From what I understand, once the gas is out of the ground, we are pretty safe with its transport and its use and that would definitely help the Northwest. But just as there are risks with pipelines and oil tankers, there appear to be risks with fracking. Are those risks serious enough to warrant a proceed with caution approach?
-
Assuming that fracking is perfectly Ok, are the numbers that the proponents of LNG are projecting realistic? The numbers used appear to be (I am certainly no expert) based on today’s prices. Asia - China particularly - is the main market. Even if we start now, it will be about five years before the trade of commodities occurs. Will China, in the meantime, find its own source of LNG or an alternate source that would drive today’s price down. I am not trying to burst any bubble here, but are we maybe setting ourselves up for disappointment - at least as it relates to trillions of dollars in revenue and debt free governments. (I suppose up here, it really doesn’t matter as long as we gain jobs by building the infrastructure and maintaining the terminals, but it may affect how the rest of the province reacts if there are risks. So…
-
Assuming that there are legitimate concerns about fracking but there are both sides to the argument. eg some scientists see a problem; others don’t. What would we want from the next government (whatever party) before projects are approved? Would we want quick individual assessments of each project in the short term, hoping for the best while a major study took place concurrently. A moratorium while a study took place? Or is our current economic situation too fragile to be ignored whatever the risk may be.
Again, I am asking these questions because I don’t know the answers but would like to. I know I am as guilty as the next person when it comes to partisanship, but I would really appreciate if we could avoid it here. Thanks.
I am definitely of the opinion that the LNG development is going to open the doors to the Oil companies and the pipeline. I also think that the LNG issues, have not been properly brought to the people. There are many unanswered questions around this development, like the locations of the pipelines, the issues around the fraking and issues around the transportation. The government has done a brilliant job at acting like these are all separate “projects” and does not consider the other “projects” in their assessment of risk.
I am beginning to think that these mega-projects will become reality in the very near future, LNG is pretty much a done deal, so now it becomes a question of - “which political party will deliver better services and programs from the anticipated windfall?”
[quote=“DWhite”]First, let me preface this by saying that I am not making any political statement about the election. I am just asking questions after reading this article by Rafe Mair. And I realize that Rafe Mair isn’t everybody’s favourite guy and that he has an environmental bias and he hates the Liberals. But I don’t think his observations can be ignored or brushed aside without discussion.
thecanadian.org/item/1935-rafe-o … lng-scheme
-
How dangerous is fracking? I know it has been going on for dozens of years, but it must be happening far more often now. Are we running the risk of using up water supplies? Are we threatening our drinkable water tables? Are we damaging the earth’s crust? From what I understand, once the gas is out of the ground, we are pretty safe with its transport and its use and that would definitely help the Northwest. But just as there are risks with pipelines and oil tankers, there appear to be risks with fracking. Are those risks serious enough to warrant a proceed with caution approach?
-
Assuming that fracking is perfectly Ok, are the numbers that the proponents of LNG are projecting realistic? The numbers used appear to be (I am certainly no expert) based on today’s prices. Asia - China particularly - is the main market. Even if we start now, it will be about five years before the trade of commodities occurs. Will China, in the meantime, find its own source of LNG or an alternate source that would drive today’s price down. I am not trying to burst any bubble here, but are we maybe setting ourselves up for disappointment - at least as it relates to trillions of dollars in revenue and debt free governments. (I suppose up here, it really doesn’t matter as long as we gain jobs by building the infrastructure and maintaining the terminals, but it may affect how the rest of the province reacts if there are risks. So…
-
Assuming that there are legitimate concerns about fracking but there are both sides to the argument. eg some scientists see a problem; others don’t. What would we want from the next government (whatever party) before projects are approved? Would we want quick individual assessments of each project in the short term, hoping for the best while a major study took place concurrently. A moratorium while a study took place? Or is our current economic situation too fragile to be ignored whatever the risk may be.
Again, I am asking these questions because I don’t know the answers but would like to. I know I am as guilty as the next person when it comes to partisanship, but I would really appreciate if we could avoid it here. Thanks.[/quote]
My answers:
A moratorium on ANYTHING natural gas related will KILL these projects. Natural Gas extraction through fracking is relatively safe (is it 100%? absolutely not…nothing in regards to natural resource development is…but at the end of the day high paying JOBS IMO trump any marginal danger).
We are in a race with other countries to get these LNG terminals operating…any stop of the momentum will do serious damage to these terminals being built.
I am so tired of this region populace trying to STIFLE any economic activity…this LNG thing WILL transform our region completely for the better. These jobs are needed here.
[quote=“chiefdave”]I am definitely of the opinion that the LNG development is going to open the doors to the Oil companies and the pipeline. I also think that the LNG issues, have not been properly brought to the people. There are many unanswered questions around this development, like the locations of the pipelines, the issues around the fraking and issues around the transportation. The government has done a brilliant job at acting like these are all separate “projects” and does not consider the other “projects” in their assessment of risk.
I am beginning to think that these mega-projects will become reality in the very near future, LNG is pretty much a done deal, so now it becomes a question of - “which political party will deliver better services and programs from the anticipated windfall?”[/quote]
Oh please! So just because you “fear” that will happen, then NOTHING should happen? We are supposed to turn our noses up at 20 BILLION dollars of investment because people are assuming an oil line will be put through.
RIDICULOUS!
If an oil line happens in this region it certainly will not be because of LNG development…if Harper wants a pipeline here…he will get it.
Its time to stop lumping LNG and oil together.
[quote=“DWhite”]First, let me preface this by saying that I am not making any political statement about the election. I am just asking questions after reading this article by Rafe Mair. And I realize that Rafe Mair isn’t everybody’s favourite guy and that he has an environmental bias and he hates the Liberals. But I don’t think his observations can be ignored or brushed aside without discussion.
thecanadian.org/item/1935-rafe-o … lng-scheme
-
How dangerous is fracking? I know it has been going on for dozens of years, but it must be happening far more often now. Are we running the risk of using up water supplies? Are we threatening our drinkable water tables? Are we damaging the earth’s crust? From what I understand, once the gas is out of the ground, we are pretty safe with its transport and its use and that would definitely help the Northwest. But just as there are risks with pipelines and oil tankers, there appear to be risks with fracking. Are those risks serious enough to warrant a proceed with caution approach?
-
Assuming that fracking is perfectly Ok, are the numbers that the proponents of LNG are projecting realistic? The numbers used appear to be (I am certainly no expert) based on today’s prices. Asia - China particularly - is the main market. Even if we start now, it will be about five years before the trade of commodities occurs. Will China, in the meantime, find its own source of LNG or an alternate source that would drive today’s price down. I am not trying to burst any bubble here, but are we maybe setting ourselves up for disappointment - at least as it relates to trillions of dollars in revenue and debt free governments. (I suppose up here, it really doesn’t matter as long as we gain jobs by building the infrastructure and maintaining the terminals, but it may affect how the rest of the province reacts if there are risks. So…
-
Assuming that there are legitimate concerns about fracking but there are both sides to the argument. eg some scientists see a problem; others don’t. What would we want from the next government (whatever party) before projects are approved? Would we want quick individual assessments of each project in the short term, hoping for the best while a major study took place concurrently. A moratorium while a study took place? Or is our current economic situation too fragile to be ignored whatever the risk may be.
Again, I am asking these questions because I don’t know the answers but would like to. I know I am as guilty as the next person when it comes to partisanship, but I would really appreciate if we could avoid it here. Thanks.[/quote]
My thoughts…
-
Even the proponents of fracking acknowledge that there are risks associated with this process. It’s becoming more common to recycle water used in the process for further fracking of other deposits which is responsible and would ease te burden on the water supply. Although you mentioned it being safe once its out of the ground, some of what I have read suggests that much of the environmental contamination comes from spills after its reached the surface. As you also mentioned, fracking has been around for a long time. While we have to proceed with some caution, we also have years worth of studies and history of this process at our disposal.
-
If Asian markets could develop their own sources of LNG why wouldn’t they be doing it now? Either way, there is value and demand for our commodity. Markets always rise and fall and while we should expect and prepare for that, I don’t see it as a reason to not continuing to develop the resource and infrastructure around it.
-
There definitely are risks associated with the development of this resource, as there is with most resources. In my opinion, I’d like our elected government to proceed with the development of the resource while continuing with environmental monitoring for any impact.
Some of what I have read is listed below. I prefer to read articles that seem to be unbiased in order to make a fair judgement.
nytimes.com/2013/03/14/opini … d=all&_r=0
huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/2 … 40227.html
Interesting editorial in The Province today…
"B.C. NDP leader Adrian Dix’s apparent nixing of the proposed expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline from Edmonton to Burnaby shows he’s gunning for the green vote in the coming election - and is not overly concerned about financial reality.
We say “apparent,” because Dix appears to have left himself a little wiggle room to reconsider the controversial plan at a later date. But he does put the NDP on record as being opposed to two oil pipeline projects (the other being Enbridge’s Northern Gateway line) that would undoubtedly bring increased wealth to B.C. and the rest of Canada at a time when our economy is still worryingly fragile.
And the billion-dollar question is this: If we in B.C. keep saying no to pipelines, port expansions and other resource projects, how are we going to finance our health, education and other social services?
As North Vancouver engineering company president Chris Sacre points out in a letter to our newspaper, Canada has been blessed with being a resource-rich country, positioned between Asia to the west, Europe to the east and the world’s largest economy to the south.
So why are we so reluctant these days to take advantage of this? Is it because we have lost our nerve to take on any risk when it comes to disturbing the environment?
“I marvel at the dichotomy of those who despise clearcuts, yet live in the city; despise mining and oil and gas, but drive cars and trucks and live in houses with wire and metals and building products,” Sacre noted.
We marvel at it, too. And we agree with those who believe it’s short-sighted to condemn port, pipeline and other projects offering high-paying jobs that enable people to raise stress-free families in this high-cost province.
We also agree with those who want us to consider the environmental legacy we’re leaving when harvesting and processing our abundant natural resources. Right now, though, our overwhelming concern is that Dix, without knowing all the facts, is already bent on compromising our B.C. young people’s economic future."
I wonder what his hippie supporters think about this?
How old are you that you have to bring up hippies? Hippies went with the '60s and '70s.
What an insight into your thinking process that you actually call people hippies in 2013.
[quote=“Soggy”]
How old are you that you have to bring up hippies? Hippies went with the '60s and '70s.[/quote]
Maybe this old? 
[quote=“bthedog”]
[quote=“chiefdave”]I am definitely of the opinion that the LNG development is going to open the doors to the Oil companies and the pipeline. I also think that the LNG issues, have not been properly brought to the people. There are many unanswered questions around this development, like the locations of the pipelines, the issues around the fraking and issues around the transportation. The government has done a brilliant job at acting like these are all separate “projects” and does not consider the other “projects” in their assessment of risk.
I am beginning to think that these mega-projects will become reality in the very near future, LNG is pretty much a done deal, so now it becomes a question of - “which political party will deliver better services and programs from the anticipated windfall?”[/quote]
Oh please! So just because you “fear” that will happen, then NOTHING should happen? We are supposed to turn our noses up at 20 BILLION dollars of investment because people are assuming an oil line will be put through.
RIDICULOUS!
If an oil line happens in this region it certainly will not be because of LNG development…if Harper wants a pipeline here…he will get it.
Its time to stop lumping LNG and oil together.[/quote]
I think you are missing my point…
I am not fear mongering, I am just stating that the proposed LNG projects and the oil project are similar in scope. Also, the lack of any real opposition can only be seen as a positive sign for the future of any mega project for the region.
With that been said, which political party would be better positioned to deliver better social programs and services from these developments and keep jobs and benefits in the region?
[quote=“chiefdave”]
Oh please! So just because you “fear” that will happen, then NOTHING should happen? We are supposed to turn our noses up at 20 BILLION dollars of investment because people are assuming an oil line will be put through.
RIDICULOUS!
If an oil line happens in this region it certainly will not be because of LNG development…if Harper wants a pipeline here…he will get it.
Its time to stop lumping LNG and oil together.
I think you are missing my point…
I am not fear mongering, I am just stating that the proposed LNG projects and the oil project are similar in scope. Also, the lack of any real opposition can only be seen as a positive sign for the future of any mega project for the region.
With that been said, which political party would be better positioned to deliver better social programs and services from these developments and keep jobs and benefits in the region?[/quote]
Well it certainly is not the BC NDP…these projects won’t happen under their watch and as a result, they will have no financial gains to be redistributing under their social program albatrosses. Furthermore, you can bet that more money will be sucked outta these northern projects by the BC NDP and redistributed to fund their programs and services in the south and on the island.
BC Liberals is my answer - because they at least are open to bringing these developments to our region and have said exactly what they will do with the financial benefits of these types of development.
You can’t keep jobs or benefits in our province if you keep saying no to development in the first place.