THC posted:

Please explain why the Vancouver public should accept a 7x increase in tanker traffic right in the middle of our home and the addition of tankers carrying diluted bitumen which nobody knows how to clean up without reference to “muh jobs muh oil profits”


Septuple.

Postess with the Mostest posted:

Because BCers and Albertans are not opponents. They are neighbours. They are fellow countrymen and women, who want the best for themselves and each other.

Every day millions of Canadians in both provinces work together, play together, build communities and a great country together.

BCers don’t want to block Alberta’s resources. They want to know that the coast is protected. For too long it wasn’t, and now it will be. The Oceans Protection Plan makes sure of that.

Albertans care as much about Canada’s natural beauty as anyone. Spend some time camping or hiking around Kananaskis Country and talk to people. You won’t find more passionate defenders of conservation and the environment. They wouldn’t dream of putting it in jeopardy.

cowofwar posted:

The gently caress is this?

quote:

https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2018/04/15/prime-ministers-statement-trans-mountain-pipeline-project

There are times in the life of a country when we come together in common purpose, for the good of the country.

This is one of those times.

For months now, we have worked hard with the governments of British Columbia and Alberta to help them chart a path forward together on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project.

Our discussion today was the culmination of many meetings, many discussions, and I’m certain we will have many more in the days and weeks ahead.

The time we have taken in this process was necessary. That’s democracy. We knew from day one that the only way to get this built was by consulting and engaging, and listening to folks.

Canada has completed the deepest consultations with rights holders ever on a major project in this country. And working with our indigenous partners has been paramount. To date, 43 First Nations have negotiated benefit agreements with the project – 33 of those in B.C.

Throughout, the Government of Canada’s objective has been clear: To develop the vital infrastructure that is critical to our ability to get Canadian resources to global markets; and to do this while protecting our environment, which includes safeguarding our oceans and combatting climate change.

Fundamental to this strategy is the truth that protecting our environment and growing our economy are not opposing values. On the contrary, each makes the other possible.

We’ve put in place the most rigorous set of environmental standards, ocean protection and coastline protection in the world. And we’re not done. We know we can always do better, and we will.

That sense of optimism, of hope, of ambition to leave the world a better place than we found it, is who we are as Canadians.

But as I said when I first described this strategy to the Calgary Petroleum Club, five years ago: Hope alone is not enough. A relentless work ethic is needed. Pragmatism is needed. And compromise is needed.

At the end of the day, no matter the province, territory, city or town we call home, all Canadians love this country. And we are there for each other in times of need.

The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is a vital strategic interest to Canada. It will be built.

What does that mean, to say it’s a vital strategic interest to Canada?

It means hundreds of thousands of Canadians who work long hours every day to put food on their table, and to build this country, depend on this project getting built.

It means people in the oil patch are hurting, have been hurting for years, and we stand with them, just as we stand with forestry workers in B.C. , aerospace workers in Quebec and auto workers in Ontario.

It means the job of the pipefitter in Fort Mac matters as much as that of the aluminum worker in Alma, the forestry worker in Prince Rupert, the auto worker in Windsor or the fisherman in St. John’s.

It means every single Canadian’s family and future and dreams, matter.

It means the billions in public funds, for health care, for infrastructure, for the environment, now being lost to the discount on Canadian heavy crude, because we can’t get our product to new markets, is not something we can accept as a permanent anchor on our national prospects.

And it means that, even as we continue to work hard with Premiers Notley and Horgan to find solutions, we must recognize that they remain at an impasse, which only the Government of Canada has the capacity and authority to resolve.

The B.C. government’s efforts to block this project have obviously inflamed passions and political rhetoric in both provinces, and across the country. I want to encourage leaders of all stripes to keep one thing in mind as we go forward:

BCers and Albertans are not opponents. They are neighbours. They are fellow countrymen and women, who want the best for themselves and each other.

Every day millions of Canadians in both provinces work together, play together, build communities and a great country together.

BCers don’t want to block Alberta’s resources. They want to know that the coast is protected. For too long it wasn’t, and now it will be. The Oceans Protection Plan makes sure of that.

Albertans care as much about Canada’s natural beauty as anyone. Spend some time camping or hiking around Kananaskis Country and talk to people. You won’t find more passionate defenders of conservation and the environment. They wouldn’t dream of putting it in jeopardy.

We are a vast, varied cooperative federation, built on centuries of compromise. But we are, above all, one country governed by our Constitution and by the rule of law.

As such, I have instructed the Minister of Finance to initiate formal financial discussions with Kinder Morgan, the result of which will be to remove the uncertainty overhanging the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project.

We will not have these discussions in public. But construction will go ahead.

I have also informed Premiers Notley and Horgan today that we are actively pursuing legislative options that will assert and reinforce the Government of Canada’s jurisdiction in this matter, which we know we clearly have.

Canada is a country defined by hope and hard work. Hope that a better community, a better future, a better country, are always possible. And hard work to make it happen.

So to make that dream a reality, Canadians need and expect an honest, open federal government that works with all sides to solve big problems in the national interest.

This is both our constitutional right, and our responsibility. We assert that right, and we embrace that responsibility.

A little over a week ago, I got the chance to spend an hour or so in the lunch room of the new, state of the art Suncor facility in Fort McMurray. The first thing that strikes you when you talk to people in Fort Mac is that they’re from everywhere. Every province and territory. Big cities and small towns from North Sydney to Campbell River, and all parts in between.

The work these Canadians do together creates jobs and feeds families everywhere. It is with them in mind that we assert the Government of Canada’s constitutional authority to complete this vital project.

We are going through a time of great change, here in Canada and around the world. Climate change, income inequality, the rise of extreme politics of both the right and left. These are all forces with the potential to pull us apart.

We will weather these changes. And we will come through them even stronger.

We’ll do this the way Canadians always do when we are tested: by pulling together.

Postess with the Mostest posted:

cowofwar posted:

The gently caress is this?

Canadian bitumen is an economic dead-end. Even Kinder-Morgan knows this and is trying to unload it on to governments. Investing in new pipeline infrastructure for a 60 year horizon in 2018 is a bad idea and smells of desperation by a government with no vision for Canada's economy going forwards. Shipping dilbit to Asian refineries without regulations is such a bad idea on so many levels. This exactly like Clark's natural gas or hydro dam boondoggle, it's a legacy project that no longer makes sense but which is being pushed forward with no evaluation of costs for political reasons.

Notley and Trudeau should have hitched their wagons to something with a future for the middle-class jobs jobs jobs crowd instead of oil pipelines. Oil pipelines don't even create any jobs, they couldn't even push something like domestic refineries or upgrading facilities because industry doesn't want to do that here and Notley/Trudeau's governments are so subservient to international oil interests. Now you have those governments offerings billions of dollars to a temporary construction project with poor pipeline remote monitoring from outside of the country in order to get the dilbit on to internationally registered bulk transport ships for export. There is literally no economic benefit to this project at all to Canada and it's an embarrassment that they're talking about bankrolling it. It's a huge economic, environmental, and social liability.

Reince Penis posted:

Oh sorry are we pretending this thread wasn't posting about Rob Ford everyday for years lol

berenzen posted:

Cool, then Hogan should be making this point rather than crying about the BC coastline. Because every goddamned tanker that passes by the BC coastline is an (incredibly unlikely) environmental disaster waiting to happen, not just oil tankers. Because nobody has a plan on how to haul up metric tonnes of cars/plastic toys/literally any other bit of haulage from the ocean floor. He's setting up oil as a boogeyman, except that a huge chunk of the BC economy is still incredibly reliant on oil, and will be until they can figure out how to make tankers and planes not rely on oil based fuel sources.

Helsing posted:

It's interesting to me that you think posting about a subject in CanPol, whose top unbanned contributor is PT6A, is an indicator of political knowledge or savvy.

cowofwar posted:

Did you know that a spill of yellow duckies from china has the same environmental impact and risk as a mega tanker full of dilbit?


What is a false equivalency?

TheKingofSprings posted:

I have never heard of a tanker leaking cars or rubber duckies

If they can’t even handle that though then I really don’t know why they should be allowed to carry corrosive, unrefined bitumen

Reince Penis posted:

It's interesting to me that you think your posting isn't derivative and pedantic.

Postess with the Mostest posted:

Albertans care as much about Canada’s natural beauty as anyone. Spend some time camping or hiking around Kananaskis Country and talk to people. You won’t find more passionate defenders of conservation and the environment. They wouldn’t dream of putting it in jeopardy.

berenzen posted:

Don't be facetious, 40000 tonnes of cars getting dumped into the water is incredibly damaging to marine biomes. Or paint, or toxic chemicals, or plastics etc. Oil is damaging, sure, but don't downplay the enormous environmental impact of literally anything else getting spilled. You want to bitch about the BC coastline, bitch about literally everything getting hauled into/out of the Port of Vancouver, not just oil.


There has never been a full-on tanker spill off of the BC coastline. There has been fuel spilled, like from the HMCS Calgary a few weeks ago, but that's coming from the fuel supplies of ships, not from the haulage, which is kept very well contained. It's not like unrefined bitumen is just laying loose on the deck. And those oil spills could occur from literally any tanker, not just oil tankers, as evidenced by the HMCS Calgary.

CLAM DOWN posted:

quote:

In all, the province has about 155,000 oil wells that aren't producing but have yet to be fully remediated, the study found — and cleaning those up could cost an estimated $8 billion.

In Alberta, industry is responsible for funding the cleanup of wells left behind by bankrupt energy companies. However, public money has also been used. Alberta offered a $235-million loan to the energy industry to clean up old wells, with the interest being paid by $30 million from the federal budget.

Square Peg posted:

What? No you ignoramus, oil is uniquely terrible because it spreads itself into a toxic film on the top of the water and coats anything it touches in a layer of poisonous filth. This is especially true of the crap we plant to pump through that boondoggle pipeline.

A loving tanker of nuclear reactors would be less damaging to have go overboard.

Postess with the Mostest posted:

Albertans care as much about Canada’s natural beauty as anyone. Spend some time camping or hiking around Kananaskis Country and talk to people. You won’t find more passionate defenders of conservation and the environment. They wouldn’t dream of putting it in jeopardy.

quote:

9.2. SPECIFIC ISSUES
158. An overview of the issues reported by Heiltsuk first responders concerning Day 2 of the Incident is
as follows:
a. Booms set in Gale Creek had broken throughout the night and needed to be replaced. Boom
continued to be faulty and ineffective in the waters.
b. Absorbent pads were used for containment on Day 2, but as these pads sank when
deployed, UC directed all absorbent pads be picked up.
c. Skimming efforts were used on Day 2, but Heiltsuk first responders observed that they were
ineffective because the sheen had already dispersed.
d. Containment boom was not placed around tug until sometime during the morning on Day 2.
e. Spill response material on the Barge had not been used during Day 1, despite a lack of
equipment.
f. Difficulties with setting boom due to weather, tide and the current persisted. An opportunity
to set boom again in Gale Creek on Day 2 was missed, so that the boom had to be staged to
be set by helicopter the next day.
g. Heiltsuk first responders reported they observed parties involved in the response still trying
to organize operations. There was still confusion on Day 2 about who was in charge.

Scorchy posted:

https://twitter.com/cbcnewsbc/status/985986945070268417
https://twitter.com/cbcnewsbc/status/985990530868822017

Is this even legal?

Nobody mentions the existing pipeline has already spilled 5 times in the last 15 years, including this poo poo in 2007:



When it dumped 250,000 litres into Burnaby and into Burrard Inlet. This was the BEST case scenario, since it was crude and was mostly on land. Good thing Kinder Morgan was fined $150,000 so they knew not to do it again.

A marine spill would be the most devastating thing to happen in the history of Vancouver maybe short of a major earthquake. The NEB approval process deliberately did not take into account the marine impact because they knew it wouldn't pass.

Stickarts posted:

The dying synapses in my coma dream have misfired up this weird alternate reality where the NDP Alberta government starts a trade war with the NDP BC government to force an oil pipeline through it.



(The Sask Party has also announced that SK will restrict oil to BC now too.)

CLAM DOWN posted:

Cool, so Sask wants to get owned by court challenges too. Do we even import oil from that racist hellhole?

Scorchy posted:

Is this even legal?

berenzen posted:

Look, I get it. The thread doesn't like the oil and I can appreciate that, I'm not a huge fan of it myself, but I realize the necessity for it until there's massive breakthroughs in battery efficiency and synthetic material development. But this comes off as incredibly hypocritical when there's ~19000 more tankers going out of Vancouver every year, any a spill of any one of them can be just as environmentally devastating as an oil spill; it just doesn't look or smell as bad. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I'm not seeing policies by Hogan to reduce the amount of tankers going through Port of Vancouver.

JawKnee posted:

lol the tar of the prairies is no where near as useful as the poo poo from parts elsewhere

JawKnee posted:

trick question: we can't

berenzen posted:

How can we clean up tonnes of cars eroding toxic chemicals into deep ocean, causing devestation of marine biomes.

Trick question: we can't.

JawKnee posted:

how many car spills have there been vs oil spills?

berenzen posted:

The same amount on the BC coastline: 0.

berenzen posted:

Doesn't make the tankers any less dangerous to the environment. The whole point of my post was that Hogan's 'our coastline' argument is bullshit, because if he's worried about oil tanker spills, then he should be equally as worried as cargo tanker spill. Which is multiple times more likely to occur, and still dangerous to the BC coastline biomes. There are a lot of other very valid reasons for why the pipeline shouldn't go through, but the coastlines argument is really loving dumb if he's not including literally every other tanker in that. And he won't, because shipping makes up a fairly substantial portion of the BC GDP.

quote:

The Alberta Energy Regulator is reporting that a pipeline leaked about 100,000 litres of oil and 190,000 litres of salty produced water near Zama City in the far northwest corner of the province.