I think the gateway pipeline would benifit the whole north,jobs and a future for our young kids so they will
stay in the north and not have to move to find jobs.If they can make sure all safety concerns are delt with
and the first nations give the green light we should move ahead.
Money is seductive, aint’ it?
The reality is this pipeline is owned by big oil who have a reputation for keeping most of the money for themselves. Oh, the construction will provide some short term jobs, but where will you be 5 years from now?
And have you considered the environmental damage in Alberta? Or the health problems their citizens are already experiencing? These tar sands are really bottom-of-the barrel as energy sources go.
So knowing what I’ve just told you, will you look the other way when they flash some money in front of your face?
You’re not ensuring your children’s future, you’re endangering it.
x
Especially those handy with a mop, eh? Or if you got shares in that detergent they clean the birds off with.
“Uncle Tom” Harper sez: “You jess pick de cotton, boy. None yo’ concern wuffo you pick it.”
[quote=“ajaye46”]I think the gateway pipeline would benifit the whole north,jobs and a future for our young kids so they will
stay in the north and not have to move to find jobs.If they can make sure all safety concerns are delt with
and the first nations give the green light we should move ahead.[/quote]
Trolling again?
I don’t agree with ajaye46 on this one, but, I think his point of view is fine.
Trolling? Nope
Having a talent of a salesperson equivalent to a Nigerian scammer? Yep
Yes many people think we should fall on our knees, ever so grateful for those tens of jobs and never mind the consequences. Magic ponies will look after us. Enbridge has a 99.999999999% rate of perfection, their man said on the radio.
And ferries only sink in BanglaDesh and Togo.
We should really get with the program here people…
we should welcome this project with open arms and try and reap some benefits from this multi billion dollar project.
Never mind the fear mongering…if we open our collective arms we will reap financial and economic benefits…especially on reservations where unemployment is as high as 60%…This project will go through…better to be known as the guys that supported from day one than have to kiss ass at the end of the day.
And your point is?
That individual contractors shouldn’t apply for short-term project postings because it isn’t a unionised retirement position? Give me a break.
I only have a couple of quick points about this that I’d like to add. I have to admit that I’m somewhat on the fence and am not as opposed as many. There is so much strong and vocal opposition that I’m a little afraid to even open debate because the opposition voice is so strong. With that in mind, we need to hear more from those who support the project other than the obvious stakeholders to have fair debate and hear rational information from both sides.
One important point that I haven’t seen being discussed yet is the pipeline route. It appears to come into BC north of the Fraser and crosses Hwy 16 at Burns Lake, heading West into Kitimat. It seems like a good route because it misses the major river systems although it will likely cross some tributaries that run into the Fraser and Skeena like the Morice River for example, which runs into the Bulkey at Houston. Major slide and avalanche areas are missed which minimizes risk. I know it’s a sensitive subject and I’m not even sure what I think about it sometimes. The pros and cons on both sides are extreme.
200 tankers per year going right past where the Queen of the North sank is scary. Douglas channel for the most part is narrower than where the Queen hit Gill Island. Would be over 50 miles of turns and channels to go through to get t Kitimaat.
Yes but you have to understand that enbrige also said they would have two
mega tugs guideing the tankers in and out.
[quote=“ajaye46”]Yes but you have to understand that enbrige also said they would have two
mega tugs guideing the tankers in and out.[/quote]
You have to understand that these tankers will be 1/2 mile from hitting land for most of the time in Douglas channel. You get a mid sized tanker(exxon Valdez size) of near 1000 feet long in wind and tide and I doubt 2 mega tugs are going to do much good if there is a major mehanical failure.
I see Enbridge had a pipeline break 2 days ago somewhere, so what happens then Ajay if it breaks near one of our rivers?
Certainly not worth the risk to me for maybe 1000 long term jobs and fattening the wallets of an energy company.
[quote=“ajaye46”]Yes but you have to understand that enbrige also said they would have two
mega tugs guideing the tankers in and out.[/quote]
Mega tugs are going to help prevent pipeline breaches… Give your head a shake… How many weeks in your recent memory have we been without natural gas because of landslides taking out the PNG line?
[quote=“Energy Pipeline News”]Enbridge has history of citations for safety violations, oil spills
WASHINGTON – The Enbridge Energy Partners LP subsidiary of Calgary-based Enbridge Inc. involved in a massive crude oil spill in Michigan is among various Enbridge companies with questionable safety records.
Enbridge or its affiliates have been cited for 30 enforcement actions since 2002 by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), the U.S. Department of Transportation’s regulatory arm.
In a warning letter sent Jan. 21, the agency told the company it may have violated safety codes by improperly monitoring corrosion in the pipeline responsible for the massive Michigan spill on July 25-26 in Talmadge Creek, a waterway in Calhoun County’s Marshall Township that flows into the Kalamazoo River.
A May 2010 report by the Polaris Institute, drawing on government and Enbridge data, identified 49 “significant incidents” on the company’s pipelines between 1999 and 2009. The accidents, in total, resulted in three worker deaths, 26,000 barrels (more than one million gallons) of oil and other materials spilled, and more than $30 million in property damage.
Between 1999 and 2008, according to the Polaris Institute, Enbridge recorded 610 spills in the U.S. and Canada that released 132,000 barrels of hydrocarbons into farms, wetlands and waterways on the continent. According to the Polaris Institute, this volume of crude “amounts to approximately half of the oil that spilled from the oil tanker the Exxon Valdez after it struck a rock in Prince William Sound, Alaska in 1988.” [/quote]
Hmm, in the end, Kitimat may already be out of the picture and it’s hello Prince Rupert!
theglobeandmail.com/news/nat … le2299228/
Let the angry birds begin to take flight.
[quote=“Speakuppr”]
[quote=“ajaye46”]Yes but you have to understand that enbrige also said they would have two
mega tugs guideing the tankers in and out.[/quote]
Mega tugs are going to help prevent pipeline breaches… Give your head a shake… How many weeks in your recent memory have we been without natural gas because of landslides taking out the PNG line?[/quote]
Give your own head a shake. ajaye was responding to the comment about the shipping route going through sensitive and dangerous waters. His comment about the tugs had nothing to do with the pipeline.
[quote=“PLA”]
And your point is?
That individual contractors shouldn’t apply for short-term project postings because it isn’t a unionised retirement position? Give me a break.[/quote]
My point is this stuff is highly toxic even before it reaches the coast. It needs to be left in the ground where it BELONGS.
calproject.org/factsheet-ibcc-tarsands.pdf
x
Excellent article…
theglobeandmail.com/news/nat … le2299228/
I say bring it if the haisla are opposed.
We should back door Kitimat and roll out the red carpet for this project
We all need to be looking at the big picture here and start being a lot more practical about the use of resources and where they come from and are used. The Simple fact is that Canada is still a net importer of oil. So why are we exporting any? we should be consuming what we produce domestically and importing less. There is absolutelty no need for this pipeline, it makes absolutely no practical sense.
Canada is a net ***exporter ***of oil. But I agree, we don’t need this pipeline. Why are we sending energy reserves to a country with such an abysmal human rights record? What will be our rights if we decide to reduce the flow to China?