Oliver man speaks out about pipeline, gets visit from RCMP

[Drongoman]

They say ignorance is bliss.
Mr Allsop's people have been living off the land up yonder since time immemorial,,, yo!
Mr Allsop's people aren't interested in a one year job for a pipeline company to build something that will destroy their heritage and future in one spill. Y'all better make sure your stub is sent in on time cause there ain't no jobs for y'all up yonder, not with no pipeline, no sir re.

1. There would be jobs for more than one year.
2. This apocalyptic scenario you envision just isn't based in any reality

[econovan64]

They say ignorance is bliss.
Mr Allsop's people have been living off the land up yonder since time immemorial,,, yo!
Mr Allsop's people aren't interested in a one year job for a pipeline company to build something that will destroy their heritage and future in one spill. Y'all better make sure your stub is sent in on time cause there ain't no jobs for y'all up yonder, not with no pipeline, no sir re.

1. There would be jobs for more than one year.
2. This apocalyptic scenario you envision just isn't based in any reality

Ever heard of the Exxon Valdez?
Ever been to Hartley Bay?
Well its over 160 km from the open water of Hecate Straight to Kitimat in treacherous, narrow channels with some of the worst weather, lowest visibility and highest tides in Canada. Do you know what that means for navigating a supertanker in a narrow channel when a plus tide rips to a minus tide or vice versa? The channel becomes a raging river.

Only people who put money ahead of everything are saying this is safe. The people that live there who would benefit from those jobs, don't want it.

No amount of short term jobs is worth the risk of a supertanker accident in Douglas Channel according to the people who have lived there for hundreds of generations. Or a pipeline rupture anywhere along the way from Alberta. It is very rugged and remote country, any accident would be a disaster with immeasurable destruction.

Before you attack the integrity of Mr Allsop any farther you really need to find out what you are talking about.

[Drongoman]

Ever heard of the Exxon Valdez?.

yes - this was in 1989. At what point does the statue of limitations on scare-mongering about old oil tanker spills run out? That was 23 years ago, and yet that tanker, the only one in that part of the world in the past 23 years to spill, is still dredged up as the reason why no oil can ever be transported ever again. That is just a silly argument. The captain was drunk. The spill was cleaned up. Life has moved on. Why can't you?

Ever been to Hartley Bay?

Nope - have you? I've been to Kitimat many times though. Somehow other big boats get in there to supply the Alcan Aluminum and Eurocan complexes, and how many of those have been in accidents? None that I know of.

Well its over 160 km from the open water of Hecate Straight to Kitimat in treacherous, narrow channels with some of the worst weather, lowest visibility and highest tides in Canada. Do you know what that means for navigating a supertanker in a narrow channel when a plus tide rips to a minus tide or vice versa? The channel becomes a raging river.

Only people who put money ahead of everything are saying this is safe. The people that live there who would benefit from those jobs, don't want it.

No amount of short term jobs is worth the risk of a supertanker accident in Douglas Channel according to the people who have lived there for hundreds of generations. Or a pipeline rupture anywhere along the way from Alberta. It is very rugged and remote country, any accident would be a disaster with immeasurable destruction..

Immeasureable destruction? See, it's this kind of overblown nonsense that makes me want to hurl. This is why we have environmental review processes. I want to see actual studies done that show just what the risks are, not scare-mongering from environmental groups. The problem with you guys is that you cry wolf over everything, so no one can believe anything you say. No matter what is proposed for transporting oil, every scenario results in "immeasureable destruction". This is just silly. In every thing in life, there are risks and rewards. We as a society have to gauge what are acceptable rewards for acceptable risks. There is a strata of society that never want to risk anything, and would prefer everyone just sat around with their thumbs firmly implanted in their rectums. I want to see the entire scope of this project before I make a final decision, and nutty enviro groups putting forth worst-case scenarios laden with hyperbole is not who I get my information from.

Before you attack the integrity of Mr Allsop any farther you really need to find out what you are talking about.

he's the one who ran to the press. Stop with this "attack the integrity" nonsense. If he wants to go public with his supposed fishy story about calling the PMO and getting hassled by the cops, which no one else can verify except some "phone records", then he should expect to have his integrity called into question. Also - the question is a fair one - what is his source of income if he can volunteer to read at schools, and now wants to devote all his time to fighting economic development in Terrace? Who is paying this guy?

[Bagotricks]

yes - this was in 1989. At what point does the statue of limitations on scare-mongering about old oil tanker spills run out? That was 23 years ago, and yet that tanker, the only one in that part of the world in the past 23 years to spill, is still dredged up as the reason why no oil can ever be transported ever again. That is just a silly argument. The captain was drunk. The spill was cleaned up. Life has moved on. Why can't you?

You may have "moved on" but the oil has not. It's still washing ashore "23 years later".

We only have one pristine coastline with whales and endangered wildlife that depend on it.

The entire Gulf of Mexico's ocean floor is covered with oil, pretty much a "dead" zone now. That was last year.

There is a oil pipeline spill every week in North America.

Enbridge just dumped 800,000 gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo river this year.

The oil isn't going anywhere - whats the rush?

[jimsenchuk]

What I find depressing about a discussion like this is how quickly the partisan trolls on both sides of the political spectrum resort to name calling, sniping and innuendo instead of looking at the issue dispassionately and asking just what is going on.

Sad.

I totally agree with you Ed. :)

[hobbyguy]

Put me down as against the pipeline.

You can argue against the dangers of having tankers in those waters, but human errors happen, and some of them (like the BP gulf mess) can be a result of unintended consequences of corporate policies. You can't predict the dumb things that happen, but you CAN predict that dumb things will happen - like the ferry sinking nearby. I lived in the general area for stretch, in my case Graham island, and the waters were very treacherous. My father-in-law lived in Kitimat and nearly lost his life fishing Douglas channel, the weather can turn really ugly really fast. Not to mention strong tidal currents.

Yes the ships servicing Alcan have done OK. They are smaller, and much more agile than tankers. If a bunch of aluminum ingots and the ships fuel hit the bottom - a mess, but infintessimal compared to a tanker. Same can be said of LNG tankers, far less lasting damage if there is a problem. The Exxon Valdez disaster, as pointed out earlier here, was in the late 80's - but the clean up is still not done and significant effects are still being felt.

This has been looked at objectively several times, which is why we have had a moratorium for years on tanker traffic around Hectate strait.

A big issue with this is that Harper made up his mind BEFORE any hearings and without reference to all the previous work done on this issue. Then he hobbles the review process with new deadline rules etc. This smells of a payback to his buddies in the oil industry. I wonder if Mr. Harper knows port from starboard - or even cares.

Probably doesn't care as he is using the tactic of smearing opponents. More or less saying that all opponents are nut cases, possibly terrorists, and implying that it is unpatriotic to oppose the pipeline.

What Mr. Harper fails to recognize that it is precisely the love of this land/sea that motivates opponents. Now that's a fair component of patriotism, loving the land you live on and the seas around it. It appears that Mr. Harper sees the pursuit of $$$$ as more patriotic than making sure you don't leave a big mess for future generations.

[econovan64]

Put me down as against the pipeline.

You can argue against the dangers of having tankers in those waters, but human errors happen, and some of them (like the BP gulf mess) can be a result of unintended consequences of corporate policies. You can't predict the dumb things that happen, but you CAN predict that dumb things will happen - like the ferry sinking nearby. I lived in the general area for stretch, in my case Graham island, and the waters were very treacherous. My father-in-law lived in Kitimat and nearly lost his life fishing Douglas channel, the weather can turn really ugly really fast. Not to mention strong tidal currents.

Yes the ships servicing Alcan have done OK. They are smaller, and much more agile than tankers. If a bunch of aluminum ingots and the ships fuel hit the bottom - a mess, but infintessimal compared to a tanker. Same can be said of LNG tankers, far less lasting damage if there is a problem. The Exxon Valdez disaster, as pointed out earlier here, was in the late 80's - but the clean up is still not done and significant effects are still being felt.

This has been looked at objectively several times, which is why we have had a moratorium for years on tanker traffic around Hectate strait.

A big issue with this is that Harper made up his mind BEFORE any hearings and without reference to all the previous work done on this issue. Then he hobbles the review process with new deadline rules etc. This smells of a payback to his buddies in the oil industry. I wonder if Mr. Harper knows port from starboard - or even cares.

Probably doesn't care as he is using the tactic of smearing opponents. More or less saying that all opponents are nut cases, possibly terrorists, and implying that it is unpatriotic to oppose the pipeline.

What Mr. Harper fails to recognize that it is precisely the love of this land/sea that motivates opponents. Now that's a fair component of patriotism, loving the land you live on and the seas around it. It appears that Mr. Harper sees the pursuit of $$$$ as more patriotic than making sure you don't leave a big mess for future generations.

Hey great stuff. My kids were born in Rupert and I've been all over the north coast. Beautiful place but you really have to be aware of tide rips in those channels at different times and directions.

The fact that they are proposing supertankers through some of those passages is guarantee of disaster. Those 300 meter ships take miles to stop and Kilometres to turn in. Some of he proposed passages are less than a kilometre wide with sharp turns. Anything goes wrong they are on the rocks, of which there are plenty. Its dangerous navigating there in any vessel. 300+ meter supertanker with 300,000 plus tonnes of crude and the vessel weighing the same. Its a no go.

People are against this is for very good reason. Its a recipe for disaster. These are thinking people that know the area well. Not flying off the handle know nothing nut bars throwing tantrums when they don't get their way. The pipeline to Kitimat is a no go.

[hobbyguy]

Glad to see aboriginal groups planning to go to court. Seems they think Harper has made the review/hearing process into a sham. Good for them in calling him out!

[econovan64]

Very interesting article on the topic.
http://murraydobbin.ca/2012/01/17/stephen-harper-and-the-big-oil-party-of-canada/

Stephen Harper and the Big Oil Party of Canada
Posted on January 17, 2012 by murraydobbin

Where will you be and what will you be doing when the first giant oil tanker, (there will be two plying the waters every three days) carrying over 200,000 gallons of tar sands goop diluted with solvent, spills its load into the pristine waters of the northern BC coast? We often remember catastrophic events by recalling exactly what we were doing and where we were when we first heard the news, I guess because they were so unthinkable they brought us to a halt, emotionally and psychologically – time stopped. I was driving down a street in Waterloo, Ontario when I heard the news of the Montreal Massacre and I can still vividly recall my stomach turning as disbelief turned to revulsion. I will never forget that moment – and you will never forget the oil spill moment, if we let it happen.
When the global oil companies run your country – when they own your government – economic and environmental catastrophe are literally guaranteed. In Canada the oil companies and the Harper government know with a sinister certainty that an oil spill catastrophe is coming. The precautionary principle, rooted in the notion of the common good and established on a foundation of science, has no place in the calculations of global capital. It is replaced by risk assessment, cost/benefit analysis. But the assessment isn’t aimed at ensuring something bad won’t happen as it seems to imply. It is based on a cost/benefit analysis. How much will the oil spill cost? That it will happen is actually part of the calculation. Remember the Ford Pinto?
Stephen Harper muses about the evil being practiced by environmental and “other radical groups” as they engage in the democratic process provided to them (the hearings on the Enbridge pipeline) by his government. It’s as if by doing exactly what they are called upon to do, they are endangering the nation. This follows Harper’s repeated talk about the pipeline being necessary for the good of the country and the economy – and his declaration that anyone who criticizes the tar sands or the pipeline is sabotaging the economy. He calls then “ideological.” But ideology is meaning in the service of power – and all of it to date is coming from Harper and Big Oil.
This spinning is part of the preparation his government needs as it plans to first, denigrate, and second ignore, the environmental panel set to spend 18 months examining the pipeline and its impacts. He needs to undermine the panel’s work because we already know the project’s impact. The opposition will be backed by science and popular opposition. Any panel decision that gives the go-ahead for Gateway will be one that ignores virtually all the evidence. To maintain its credibility the panel may well rule against it and force Harper to reject its findings. And without a massive public campaign that can actually threaten Conservative-held ridings in BC, that is what will happen.
Harper’s dogged dedication to the oil patch could be his undoing as it privileges one sector of the economy at the expense of virtually all the others (except the financial sector which with government borrowing and the CMHC ensuring mortgages, never loses). This puts the Harper government in a different category than previous neo-liberal governments of Mulroney, Chretien and Martin. All of these governments and their leaders developed most policy positions at the behest of the Business Council on National Issues, now the Canadian Council of Chief Executives.
By delivering on the list of priorities (Paul Martin was presented with an even ten in 1994 and delivered on them all) Canadian governments pre-Harper actually balanced their promotion of corporate interests. This was, said the 150 CEOs, good for the economy – that is, their economy. The BCNI/CCCE represented the biggest players in all the key sectors and their policy interests were balanced by the time the package of preferences (demands?) were presented to the sitting finance minister.
That practice, where no budget was ever presented to Parliament before being vetted by the most powerful CEOs in the country, effectively ended when Stephen Harper became prime minister. The smartest man in the room does not take kindly to being told what to do even by the most powerful. It might have something to do with the fact that they can’t buy favours any more with the new election financing rules.
But actually it goes back twenty years to the formation of the Reform Party where Stephen Harper, as Manning’s policy director, blended neo-liberal policies with culturally conservative policies to create a wholly new phenomenon: a right-wing libertarian party posing as populist to ensure a loyal and generous base. Of course it was Preston Manning who led the party. He had carefully chosen the timing (having got it wrong once before) to coincide with a growing populist discontent amongst prairie and Alberta Conservatives who felt betrayed by Mulroney.
But he and his party needed a kick start. And fortunately for him the oil companies were eager to find someone who could put together just such a party – one that would never mess with them again. The national energy policy of Pierre Trudeau still traumatized them and they wanted insurance that no one would ever get their hands on their oil. One renegade oil man told me, laughing, that people in the oil industry really, really believe that because they found it, it belongs to them – any tax paid or royalty extracted is simply theft.
The oil men knew Manning having researched him and believed he might just fit the bill. But seeing as they were paying the tab to get the party off the ground (an expensive proposition) they wanted Manning close by where they could keep an eye on him, and they wanted him to immerse himself in oil industry political culture to make it the dominant driver of the party. So they insisted that he move from Edmonton to Calgary. Manning obliged. And that was the beginning of the Big Oil Party, brilliantly peddled as a party of the little man all the while planning policies that would impoverish him.
And by declaring themselves a Western party – the slogan was “The West wants in” – Manning and Harper reinforced the importance of Alberta, its American-inspired sense of hyper-independence and, of course, its oil. Indeed, this sense of profound difference that dominates the ruling political elite – reflected in the “firewall letter” penned by Harper and others – that contributes to the privileging of the oil industry in Canada. Not only was Alberta the most “free market” province of all, it was the one that resisted most vigorously the social democratic state that evolved in the 1960s.
Many people from all sides of the political divide – including Peter Lougheed – have pointed out that the rapid expansion of the tar sands is just really bad economic and energy policy. It is also extremely bad national security policy. Most of Quebec and the Maritime provinces rely exclusively for their oil on the Middle East producers – the so-called “unethical oil” of Harper’s spinmeisters. Sending oil to China that could otherwise make the whole country self-sufficient is not just an absence of a national energy policy – it is a declaration the national government simply isn’t national and has no intention of becoming so.
But for all Harper’s touted strategic genius he sometimes seems perversely stuck to a policy that will actually hurt him. He couldn’t resist bashing culture in the middle of the 2008 election and infuriated Quebec, probably losing a majority. This time he is tying his political future in a high-stakes fight (it will dwarf anything seen before) for a pipeline which the majority of oiligarchs thinks is not even needed. Maybe he likes fighting with one hand tied behind his back.
There seem to be three fronts in this battle, each of them distinct and each playing a key and overlapping role with the others. The first comprises the scores of NGOs, First Nations and community groups (and individuals) who will bury the assessment committee in first rate evidence of the madness of the project and its looming, serial disasters. Then comes the provincial government of BC which, under the Liberals, is schizophrenic on then issue but may yet come out against the project. But under the NDP, who I predict will win handily in 2013 as the panel reports, the provincial government must be persuaded to use every power at its disposal to halt this monstrosity. And lastly, folks in the formal political arena (with the help of the NGOs) have as their task identifying 10 or 12 or more Conservative MPS for defeat on this issue.
All of this is on-going at different levels and speeds. And if you are not a part of any of these political fronts you need to take out you checkbooks or credit cards and ask yourself how much it is worth to not experience that horrible moment you will never forget. Not sure of who to give to? Here are five groups which my sources suggests are using their resources and strategic intelligence most effectively: West Coast Environmental Law, Headwaters Initiative, Dogwood Initiative, Friends of Wild salmon and the Wilderness Committee. They – though not just them – are your voice. Make it powerful.

[cutter7]

These boats need to achieve a certain speed to be able to turn. The problem is, due to their size and weight it takes a long distance to stop.

Prince Rupert has the second largest harbour in the world yet there have been instances of vessels dragging anchor and winding up crashed on shore due to the severe weather that can occur on the north coast.

People in that area depend on the sea for their existence, If they don't want tankers in their waters I support them.

[Drongoman]

Glad to see aboriginal groups planning to go to court. Seems they think Harper has made the review/hearing process into a sham. Good for them in calling him out!

who made it into a sham exactly? "Harper", or the millions of dollars from foreign interests and the thousands of fake sign-ups to the regulatory hearings? If the environmentalist groups had acted responsibly, then the entire process wouldn't have been called into question, but they acted like spoiled children. If the people of that area do not want the tankers, then the oil should go out of another port. We need to sell the oil to pay for our giant social safety net - so let's ship it via Vancouver.

[mrj222]

Sounds good. Vancouver it is.

[jimsenchuk]

Sounds good. Vancouver it is.

You got that right, and build the pipe line right through the Okanagan, lots of jobs for a yr or so, sound good? :)

[Drongoman]

You got that right, and build the pipe line right through the Okanagan, lots of jobs for a yr or so, sound good? :)

The funny thing is, there probably are pipelines going through the Okanagan right now, that no one even knows about, or cares about. All of this "pipeline mania" that is so in vogue with Hollywood D list celebrities has been completely manufactured. That whole Nebraska being against the Keystone pipeline because it crossed their aquifer was beyond comical, as that aquifer is already crisscrossed by thousands of other pipelines. There obviously were other factors at work, including US oil companies wanting to ensure the US population is kept on a steady diet of oil from the middle east rather than Canadian oil, that were coming into play, and the whole aquifer issue was brought up as a convenient excuse.

[jimsenchuk]

Of course there are lots of pipelines in the Okanagan, but no crude oil pipelines, gas lines yes, water lines yes, but no crude oil pipelines, lets all lobby for a crude oil pipeline through the Okanagan, then when the first blow out happens and the lakes are contaminated then we can rethink our decision. :)