LOL…Where do you get the idea there will be fracking in our watershed ?? As for locals being hired, the pool for hard working “reliable” employee’s is pretty slim. My comment may seem harsh, but I have seen it. There are lazy people who don’t want to work even when the wage is very good. There are what, 5 or 6 proposals for LNG facilities in the Rupert area ?? I’m sure 1 or 2 will be approved.
As far as I know, none of the frac’d gas wells I’ve serviced weren’t even near drinking water source… lol
might not be my watershed but its in someone watershed and the pipelines will go through our watershed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe591PtCfa0
WHAT WILL BE YOUR LEGACY TO YOUR KIDS…
Nothing worse than a natural gas spill! Any idea what that would do to the watershed?
lol Got me MiG, but there still is damage to the atmosphere and or chance of explosion if a leak happens…
[quote=“Astro”]lol Got me MiG, but there still is damage to the atmosphere and or chance of explosion if a leak happens…
coastal.ca.gov/energy/lng/sp … ll-lng.pdf
content.time.com/time/health/art … 62,00.html[/quote]
… so the negligible damage to the atmosphere is your reason for not wanting to have jobs and prosperity in prince rupert? or is it those pesky oil slicks from natural gas?
There’s way too much gas in this forum, and most of it is coming from Astro 
haha
Well I’d rather have LNG than Northern Gateway - but I’d rather have neither if we sell the resource for a song and a dance just so some foreign company can make a profit. It’s not the jobs created in Prince Rupert that will pay for public services in the entire province - it is the royalties/taxes etc that we will charge for our natural resources. And personally I think the pipeline companies should pay a volume based royalty for being able to run a pipeline through crown lands. We give far too much away …
Stuart salmon run was down again. WASN’T ME!!! It was the smorg and the Rickard’s Red. Not my fault.
Well now that I have an ileostomy I bag my natural gas and dispose of it in a controlled environment … only the occasional uncontrolled discharge …
If this thread has accomplished anything, it has shined a big light on what a weak excuse Astro has come up with for his anti-LNG in Rupert stance…more families moving to town? is that the best you can come up with??? I am shocked at your ignorance.
The majority of the unemployed right now in Rupert are unemployed for good reason, and not because there is “no jobs!”. Too many lazy as shit people who can’t hold a job down to save their life.
There is a ton of opportunity out there right now, good workers are getting good jobs, tons of people are moving back and getting jobs…the people who aren’t getting them need to look at themselves first and ask themselves why they aren’t. They need to educate themselves, train themselves.
excuse me bltdog I’m going to stay with the idea that having 10 or so LNG plants on our coastline is not a good idea and that it will bring more harm then good. I can see past the financial windfall for the area and see the negative impact it will have in not just our area but also up north where the franking is taking place. You don’t seem to care about the impact that is having else where. and I don’t really care if you think my argument is weak. I’m not here to educate you or anyone else. how fucking boring this forum would be if we all thought the same. so what if I differ from the rest of you. I’m shocked at your ingnorance. excuse me as I’m leaving on a 10 day hunting trip. good luck 2 the rest of you.
Just like his Fukushima-is-going-to-radiate-our-fish argument… lol
Rupert should sell fresh water harvested at sea. We have a never ending supply.
You’ll need a desalination plant to make the water drinkable. Perhaps the plant could be powered by LNG? 
There is no salt in the rain. One needs only leave a clean tanker out there and let it fill up. No pollution required to desalinate. Unless the air around here is polluted, say from burning LNG to compress gas for over seas travel.
You COULD start by educating yourself instead of making laughable claims and accusations. Perhaps start with what hydraulically fracturing is/does and move onto pipelines and plants so you have an idea of how they’re completely unrelated. Fairly certain Petronas’ move was in response to Clark’s recent statements… A multi-billion dollar proposal doesn’t just evaporate overnight because a government hints they’d like to profit from it; especially not when they have ~30 rigs actively drilling in your province, without a means to export the resources.
I’m cutting my thoughts short as Baker just pulled on location and I have some casing to cement inside of cemented casing (4 barriers from potential groundwater sources) that will be used to frac through and produce though in order to power your belongings. Why is this fracturing into groundwater debate still going on?
The educate yourself on gas benefits people are usually the same people telling you to not trust “educated scientists” on the threat of green house gas emissions even though Canada is regarded as a rogue petrol state internationally now with zero plan to address climate change and the ONLY country in the world to bow out of Kyoto. Change has to start somewhere. There are plenty of new technologies, huge advances in Solar, clean nuclear salt reactors that cannot melt down and run on waste from previous reactors, etc, etc. I notice no one is mentioning how much emissions each plant will produce. Government muzzeled that one, but hey good ol google found us a link. theglobeandmail.com/news/bri … e15374968/
Its a 1 to 1 ratio. Every tonne of LNG produced creates 1 tonne of carbon emissions.
Here is a facebook page for those wanting a little more info on the impact that LNG may have on the Skeena Watershed. Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition facebook.com/Skeenawatershed