Enbridge Pipeline - Page 19 - ClubTread Community

User Tag List

 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #271 of (permalink) Old 10-10-2012, 04:32 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: , , Canada.
Posts: 322
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Monster


I'm sorry but I can't answer questions about my hidden agendas, suffice to say that I oppose allowing oil or gas tanker traffic into our north coast for the first time but my motivations for such an untenable position must remain a complete mystery.

And how far are you prepared to go to achieve the goals of your hidden agenda? Would you accept the conclusions of the independent scientific panel that is looking into this matter, and respect democracy, or resort to civil disobedience, or even violent protest to force your point of view on others?
FrankB is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of (permalink) Old 10-10-2012, 07:04 PM
Summit Master
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Powell River, bc, Canada.
Interest: hiking,swimming,anything on the water or outside.Try almost anything once
Posts: 2,746
Default

Is there such a thing as " independent scientific panel " really??
no quitting is offline  
post #273 of (permalink) Old 10-10-2012, 09:53 PM
Summit Master
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Interest: Canoeing, Hiking, Fishing and Bear kissing.
Posts: 4,501
Default

and while we're at it... what 'scientific panel'?

I think he's confusing a regulatory board with a some kind of scientific research group.
Monster is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #274 of (permalink) Old 10-10-2012, 11:43 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: , , Canada.
Posts: 322
Default

Here are the agencies charged with the responsibility of assessing the Northern Gateway Project for the citizens of Canada. They ultimately report to Parliament, and Parliament to the electorate in our democracy.

http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/default.a...n&n=D75FB358-1

https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rcmmn/hm-eng.html

And here is the link to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Joint Review Panel WEB site:

http://gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc...si/hm-eng.html

This site includes a repository of all information related to this matter.

I would hope that any citizen who is genuinely interested or concerned about this matter will take the time to acquaint themselves with the information available on this WEB site so that they can make an informed decision about what they think Parliament should do.
FrankB is offline  
post #275 of (permalink) Old 10-10-2012, 11:47 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: , , Canada.
Posts: 322
Default

Would you have the courtesy to answer the questions I asked earlier?


Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Monster


I'm sorry but I can't answer questions about my hidden agendas, suffice to say that I oppose allowing oil or gas tanker traffic into our north coast for the first time but my motivations for such an untenable position must remain a complete mystery.

And how far are you prepared to go to achieve the goals of your hidden agenda? Would you accept the conclusions of the independent scientific panel that is looking into this matter, and respect democracy, or resort to civil disobedience, or even violent protest to force your point of view on others?
FrankB is offline  
post #276 of (permalink) Old 10-13-2012, 10:50 AM
HT
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 100 Mile House, BC, Canada.
Posts: 283
Default

This should help explain what's going on:

"Chairman Harper"


http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/10/11/Chairman-Harper/

Please call your MP if you are disturbed by what these f##king traitors are doing.
HT is offline  
post #277 of (permalink) Old 10-13-2012, 04:08 PM
Summit Master
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Interest: Canoeing, Hiking, Fishing and Bear kissing.
Posts: 4,501
Default

This is the same Prime Minister that Frank trusts to follow science on pipeline decisions, but then given his own desire to see Canadian resources shiped off to China from our north coast I doubt he gives a damn about the science anymore than his trusted PM does.
Monster is offline  
post #278 of (permalink) Old 10-13-2012, 07:05 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: , , Canada.
Posts: 322
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Monster

This is the same Prime Minister that Frank trusts to follow science on pipeline decisions, but then given his own desire to see Canadian resources shipped off to China from our north coast I doubt he gives a damn about the science anymore than his trusted PM does.
Why do you have to keep up the personal attacks and put downs? Are you too insecure to debate this issue without resorting to personal attacks or distortions of what I've said, or trying to put words in my mouth?

In case you haven't noticed, Canada has more than a 150 year history of developing its natural resources and exporting them world-wide, including to China.

It started with non-renewable resources like gold, copper, lead, zinc and other metals; followed by non-renewable energy resources like coal, oil and natural gas. We are also exporting our renewable natural resources, like timber, Prairie wheat, salmon and other fish stocks, water, and vast amounts of electricity in the case of Quebec. Many of the companies involved in resource development are multi-nationals, who must abide by the standards set by the Parliament in Canada when conducting business here.

Today, largely because of the wealth created by our long history of development and export of our natural resources, Canadians are the envy of the world with regard to our standard of living, respect for human rights, and overall quality of life. And we are also the envy of the world with regard to our environmental standards, and how we have balanced development, job creation, and economic opportunity with a respect for the environment by having laws and independent scientific bodies that assess development proposals to ensure that they are consistent with what the majority of Canadians desire. And I maintain that that history of open discussion, scientific rigour, and democratic decision-making very much applies to the Northern Gateway proposal; I have complete confidence that the wishes of the majority of Canadians will ultimately be reflected in the decisions that are made.

And if at the end of the day, enough people think that the elected government of the day has it wrong- that there is too much development, job creation and growth, too much impact on the environment, too much export; or whatever, we have an opportunity every 5 years at the most to vote them out.

--------------------------------

So you still haven't answered my questions about whether you respect that democratic process, and are willing to live with the wishes of the majority of Canadians, or whether you are an anarchist, ready to do whatever it takes to force your ideas on the rest of us. Your silence on this key point, and continuing disrespect for the opinions of others, is troublesome. I would suggest you be extremely careful to ensure that you respect the laws of Canada, including those pertaining to libel and unlawful protest.

FrankB is offline  
post #279 of (permalink) Old 10-13-2012, 07:25 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: , , Canada.
Posts: 322
Default

Here is a link to an article on page 32 in the current official journal of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C. that raises concerns about the Northern Gateway project, and specifically, what they believe is the understated risk of an oil tanker accident. It is written by three respected qualified professionals, so would carry a lot of weight within the engineering and geoscience community in B.C.

http://www.digitalityworks.com/Viewe...ID=58&PageNo=1

There is also an interesting article on the expected extent of sea level rises due to climate warming- which, of course, is also linked to our use of non-renewable fossil fuels, especially oil and coal. That article is on page 26 and predicts sea level rises in the order of one metre by the end of the century.
FrankB is offline  
post #280 of (permalink) Old 10-13-2012, 11:02 PM
Summit Master
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Interest: Canoeing, Hiking, Fishing and Bear kissing.
Posts: 4,501
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by FrankB

Here is a link to an article on page 32 in the current official journal of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C. that raises concerns about the Northern Gateway project, and specifically, what they believe is the understated risk of an oil tanker accident. It is written by three respected qualified professionals, so would carry a lot of weight within the engineering and geoscience community in B.C.

http://www.digitalityworks.com/Viewe...ID=58&PageNo=1

There is also an interesting article on the expected extent of sea level rises due to climate warming- which, of course, is also linked to our use of non-renewable fossil fuels, especially oil and coal. That article is on page 26 and predicts sea level rises in the order of one metre by the end of the century.
And those aren't the only oppositions raised by scientists to the Northern Gateway Project so thank you for eventualy agreeing that an oil pipeline to the coast is a very dangerous and stupid idea.

Now back to your interest in seeing a natural gas pipeline built instead. I do appreciate that you've given up your arguments about how we need to transition towards natural gas as a rationale, I assume because shipping it off our North Coast via tanker traffic to China doesn't exactly aid that goal.

Now to answer the other questions you've been insisting of me...

I don't really have any hidden agenda Frank, I dont want to see tanker traffic allowed onto our North coast for the first time, that would be my agenda and it's certainly not hidden.

To answer your question about would I accept the NEB's ruling on the pipeline, I will if it rules the way I want it to. If it does not, I will blame government influence as very clearly, many in the scientific community have already come out against the proposal.

It is a bad idea and so is a gas pipeline because it too will mean tanker traffic and I believe that any gas pipeline will inevitably be followed by an oil pipeline next. You do not carve an energy corridor out an untouched wilderness and then not utilize it for other energy exports eventually.



You know Frank, my issue with you is really about how you landed on this thread. My perception is that you pretended to want to have a conversation while in reality you wanted to advocate on behalf of a natural gas pipeline, because you have professional interests vested in the oil and gas industry.

Had you been upfront about your special interest instead of making me drag it out of you I might not have picked on you so much, or maybe I would have anyway because you do tend to skirt, skate and evade the same way the Harper government does when speaking to British Columbia about projects they want to ram down our throats.


It is unfortunate Frank, I honestly believe in many ways you are a smarter man than I but you make for a very easy target because of your willingness to sacrifice something irreplaceable and precious for the sake of a few bucks.

You actually see the monetary value in shipping our resources off to China at what I and most perceive to be the peril of an unspoiled marine paradise.

I know you dont believe there is a significant risk but if your wrong you cant undo the damage that will be caused. If I am wrong, hedge fund managers and oil companies will still find ways to make money elsewhere but our North coast will remain relatively unspoiled.

Perhaps if you had spent the time I have, exploring by canoe for up to a month at a time places that very few people have or ever will see. When you leave the inside passage and paddle west towards the open Pacific where no power boats or shipping of any kind exists, you'll quickly see that the archipelagos chiseled out of the coastline by waves, tides and winds are absolutely teaming with an astounding variety and volume of life.

The whales and dolphins and sea lions and eagles and bear and salmon and giant tidal pools of literal living colour dont really give a shit about the money Alberta and Harper want to make from resource exports to China, and on their behalf, neither do I. They are to me important enough not only to defend but to defend ruthlessly.


Now To answer your other question about how far I'd go to stop pipelines that are approved, well it depends on the product and from where on the coast but just in case, let me quote another canoe paddler... just watch me!
Monster is offline  
post #281 of (permalink) Old 10-14-2012, 12:44 AM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: , , Canada.
Posts: 322
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Monster


You know Frank, my issue with you is really about how you landed on this thread. My perception is that you pretended to want to have a conversation while in reality you wanted to advocate on behalf of a natural gas pipeline, because you have professional interests vested in the oil and gas industry.
What a totally outrageous lie! So besides being insecure, you also need to out and out lie to make your point! I have absolutely no professional interests in the oil and gas industry, have done no work for them, have no intention of doing any work for them; and even if I did- what does that matter? Is a professional biologist who agrees to assess a project some kind of traitor? You make it seem as if anyone that has anything to do with the oil and gas energy is some kind of low life. Do I qualify because I drive a car and fill up my gas tank every couple of days?

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Monster

Had you been upfront about your special interest instead of making me drag it out of you I might not have picked on you so much, or maybe I would have anyway because you do tend to skirt, skate and evade the same way the Harper government does when speaking to British Columbia about projects they want to ram down our throats.
What did you drag out of me? I certainly have no "special interest" in the natural gas industry- so what are you talking about? Another out-and-out lie, something that only a pretty insecure and paranoid individual would use to try and make a point.

FrankB is offline  
post #282 of (permalink) Old 10-14-2012, 06:28 AM
Summit Master
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Interest: Canoeing, Hiking, Fishing and Bear kissing.
Posts: 4,501
Default

Me thinks you doth protest too much. I said it was my perception and I don't actually believe a perception can be a lie, it can be correct or incorrect but essentially is only one's interpretation of events and details.

For instance...
You have stated that you do evaluations of terrain and slope hazard issues for the energy industry, you said allot is for renewable energies but you did not say it was exclusively renewables.

You subsequently suggested that you may play a supporting role in the Encana Kitimat LNG proposal process and lastly, professed support for LNG tankers out of Kitimat.

These are the sorts of things that can build perceptions.
Monster is offline  
post #283 of (permalink) Old 10-14-2012, 06:36 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: , , Canada.
Posts: 322
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Monster

Me thinks you doth protest too much. I said it was my perception and I don't actually believe a perception can be a lie, it can be correct or incorrect but essentially is only one's interpretation of events and details.

For instance...
You have stated that you do evaluations of terrain and slope hazard issues for the energy industry, you said allot is for renewable energies but you did not say it was exclusively renewables.

You subsequently suggested that you may play a supporting role in the Encana Kitimat LNG proposal process and lastly, professed support for LNG tankers out of Kitimat.

These are the sorts of things that can build perceptions.
When a "perception" is carried to a point where it distorts the truth in order to besmirch someone's character, then it is a lie and is potentially libellous, or at the very least, it is unfair and immoral and not behaviour that mature individuals engage in.

Yes, professionally, I do a lot of work on terrain analysis and slope hazard assessments- but I have mainly worked on renewable energy projects (small hydro and geothermal) and on some residential projects, and second, my role is to provide an unbiased and independent opinion to the proponent and to regulators about what geotechnical risks are present if a project goes ahead and, if it does, what might be done to minimize those risks. I usually don't work directly for a proponent as an employee- although, professionally, there is nothing wrong with that- as long as any conflicts of interest are disclosed. Of course, someone working for an environmental group and is soliciting donations to support a cause doesn't need to disclose anything.

My role is no different than a professional biologist who evaluates what environmental impacts, if any, a project would have. So neither of us are "lackeys" of the Company or a Government agency involved just because we evaluate a proposal; nor does our work imply that we either support or reject that proposal- we simply provide expert advice with regard to the proposal. Whether it is ultimately accepted or rejected is up to Government and the electorate to decide.

The way you make it out, anybody that has anything to do with Enbridge is a low-life, selling themselves out to the devil. If that is the case, then how can any proposal ever be evaluated? Or, as in my case, am I supporting the Encana natural gas proposal and the export of natural gas to China just because I agreed to take a look at the stability of some of the power pole locations that an independent subcontractor to Encana is planning to use (I never did do the work)? Yes, I happen to support the export of natural gas resources on the world market- in our democracy and free society, I am entitled to have an opinion. But does that mean I'm excluded from doing any work on anything to do with a project? I don't think so. Professionally, no matter what opinion I have, I am still obligated to do a fair and thorough evaluation of a project- unlike some preservationist zealots with a narrow or hidden agenda, I'm not allowed to exaggerate, use personal insults, or other nefarious means, or prepare biased and incomplete reports.

FrankB is offline  
post #284 of (permalink) Old 10-14-2012, 08:49 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver, , .
Posts: 171
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Monster

You know Frank, my issue with you is really about how you landed on this thread. My perception is that you pretended to want to have a conversation while in reality you wanted to advocate on behalf of a natural gas pipeline, because you have professional interests vested in the oil and gas industry.

Had you been upfront about your special interest instead of making me drag it out of you I might not have picked on you so much, or maybe I would have anyway because you do tend to skirt, skate and evade the same way the Harper government does when speaking to British Columbia about projects they want to ram down our throats.
After 15 pages of this thread, I've got to jump in here. Monster, you are totally wrong about Frank. I believe he IS upfront about his interests. I suspect he's not wild about the Enbridge project (probably would vote against it). I this his objections are based on scientific, not idealogical reasons. Frank is simply following the science. Read his posts, and read yours, and you can decide who "skirts, skates and evades" (your words).

For the record, I've known Frank for ~40 years, but not as a close friend. I consider his integrity to be excellent. He and I may disagree on where the science is taking us - that's science. Also for the record, I'm a scientist (geology) and have worked off and on in the western Enbridge area for some 40 years. For the record, I stongly, strongly oppose this pipeline proposal, and I haven't yet made up my mind on the LNG proposals.

Let's keep personal attacks out of this thread (and all threads), please.
tricouni is online now  
post #285 of (permalink) Old 10-14-2012, 10:34 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: , , Canada.
Posts: 322
Default

Thank you, Tricouni.

You pretty well read my mind on the issues- I have strong misgivings about the Enbridge Northern Gateway oil pipeline and tanker project because of four key issues:

1. Enbridge does not exactly have a good track record with regard to pipeline failures, and the fact that they are unwilling to, or not able to, obtain full insurance to cover the cost of a spill is alarming and reason enough to reject the project.

2. Although earthquakes are not likely an issue, terrain issues and potential landslides are. Based on what I've seen in their public documents, Endbridge has done some terrain analysis and hazard assessment- but not to the extent that, in my opinion, is necessary. When I assess a penstock (a pipe for carrying water, and typically, 3-4 km long), I am not prepared to support its installation until I have literally done a metre by metre traverse and analysis of the proposed route, and am able to provide a prescription for building it that has a high degree of confidence of being successful. Of course, there is always some uncertainty- but we need to ensure that these projects meet risk acceptability criteria that are acceptable to the citizens of Canada.

3. We haven't considered the alternatives. Specifically, the Enbridge Keystone Project is a less risky, but almost as profitable, route for bringing the oil to market, and keeps that oil in North America where it is able to offset imports of less reliable foreign oil. Why take a chance when we can have our environmental and supply security, and still provide the jobs and taxes we need to help our economy and social programs?

4. The Northern Gateway project does nothing to wean us off high polluting fossil fuels. We really need to be doing everything we practically can to reduce our use of non-renewable, high carbon fossil fuels. I'm not sure that either the Keystone or the Northern Gateway would do this, but I think we would have more control over our oil resources, and the potential to rein in consumption, if we keep it in North America.
--------------------
I do reluctantly support development of our natural gas resources, and the building of LNG plants to transport that gas, only because it has the potential to dramatically reduce our world-wide production of greenhouse gases, and has far less likelihood of causing an environmental catastrophe. For example, I am not aware of a single LNG tanker accident that had any significant impact on the environment (for that matter, I'm not aware there has ever been any accident!).

If we don't supply Southeast Asia with natural gas, they will continue to expand their use of coal-fired generating plants; I am told that China builds one new coal-fired plant every 10 days. On the other hand, if we can help provide the entire world with a far better way of generating electricity by using combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) base load generating plants, we get the immediate benefit of a far cleaner source of energy, but we also open the way for a potentially rapid and massive conversion to electric or hybrid cars, which can then eventually be powered by some other future source of electric power, such as fuel cell technology, fusion, or something we haven't even thought of yet.

I say "reluctantly" because I would like to see far more development of renewal energy sources (hydroelectric, wind, geothermal, and tidal) first, and only use natural gas to the extent that we have to. But let's face it, for Canada, any development of our natural gas resources would bring huge economic benefits- and I think, given the political system that we have, that we would then be in a good position to use that wealth to make the entire world a better place to live.
FrankB is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
 

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1