Notley Slams BC Oil Move

[Tony]

Their responsibilities are first and foremost to their provinces. We are both doing what is in our own best interests.

Actually, they're doing whats in their own best interests as far as their own interpretation of whats best for their Province is - not necessarily what actually is best for us or the Province.

Regardless, I still find it interesting how a political party can be so opposite of each other despite being the same party.

Dizzy - the reason they are so opposite is that the NDP in Alberta don't have to pacify the Greens in order to keep their seat. They p'd off the Greens with the LNG announcement, so this would be placating them, at the expense of the people of the Province.

Notley has now announced that they are suspending talks about buying hydro from BC.... go Horgan!

[The Green Barbarian]

Notley has now announced that they are suspending talks about buying hydro from BC.... go Horgan!

yes, please go Horgan. Right back to the Opposition where you belong.

[The Green Barbarian]

*removed*

[Snman]

HA HA HA!!!

[bob vernon]

Oil tankers have been wrecked on the shores of every ocean. And wrecks will happen again. Maybe even on the BC coast. We saw a barge filled with diesel hit the rocks in the past year or so and Canada had zero spill response ready, cuz it was never going to happen. It took days to get the spill response organized. But we'll never need to clean up a spill because it will never happen, right?

Exxon Valdez. 26 years in court.

[JagXKR]

Exxon Valdez spill is cleaned up. Most of the oil got eaten by microbes. Eco terrorist lies that it would never be cleaned were just that ...lies. Oil is natural, btw.
Where is all the oil that was dumped into all the oceans during WW2? !000's of ships sunk with Billions of gallons of oil and diesel. Where is all that petroleum?

[bob vernon]

Not all was "eaten". The bottom of the ocean south of Anchorage has a large area with a paved bottom. Sure, it'll come back eventually once enough fallout settles on top of it, but there are few fish in that area.


And today, oh no! What if this was a tanker in a big winter storm with 10 metre waves:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.4516087

Yeah, I know it's from a leftist news site. So it must be fake.

[Merry]

Interesting article about Trudeau's role (or lack thereof) in this fight with the BC NDG
http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/b ... 53b49b264c

[The Green Barbarian]

Yeah, I know it's from a leftist news site. So it must be fake.

The only thing fake is the fear-mongering from cowards.

[Merry]

Here's another opinion regarding Trudeau's action, or inaction, on this file:

Mr. Trudeau promised to deliver this pipeline to the good people of Alberta. His government has constitutional authority over construction of the project, power that is being directly challenged by the B.C. government. Mr. Trudeau is well aware of the time pressures this project is fighting. Project proponent Kinder Morgan is facing mounting costs as a result of delays. If the company is now looking at further court challenges dragging this process out for another year or two longer, it may decide to just walk away, which would be deeply unfortunate.

On Thursday, the Prime Minister reiterated his pledge: "Look, we're in a federation," he told CBC's Edmonton AM radio show. "One of the things to remember is we have a federal government to look out for the national interest above various disagreements within the provinces… We're going to get that pipeline built."

But mere words in the face of serious provocations are simply not enough. Mr. Trudeau needs to up his game, and fast. So far, he's looked fairly weak on this file. He understands how important the pipeline is to Alberta but is also aware of the environmental damage caused by the development of fossil fuels. (And if he ever needs reminding, his enthusiastic Environment Minister Catherine McKenna is there for him.) In this case, however, he made a commitment to Alberta, and he needs to stand behind it – with action.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion ... e37818150/

[CapitalB]

The only thing fake is the fear-mongering from cowards.

Is fear of a global environmental catastrophe an unhealthy thing? A tanker spill can, if its full capacity entered the water (approximately 2 million barrels), deposit a half as much oil as the entire deepwater horizon disaster. Its like nuking a section of the ocean, everything in the area dies out over the next decade and takes a currently unknown amount of time to grow back. No matter how you spin it thats not good for anyone.

[Omnitheo]

Exxon Valdez spill is cleaned up. Most of the oil got eaten by microbes. Eco terrorist lies that it would never be cleaned were just that ...lies. Oil is natural, btw.
Where is all the oil that was dumped into all the oceans during WW2? !000's of ships sunk with Billions of gallons of oil and diesel. Where is all that petroleum?

Ah the good ol “it’s natural” argument. So is mercury. Arsenic. Lead. Cadmium, uranium, All lovely natural things that are perfectly fine to accumulate in late quantities and then dump somewhere that they aren’t normally found.

When Fort Mac was burning down I’m sure everyone was exclaiming how fire was just natural and that this was no big deal. Besides, things can be rebuilt eventually.

As for WW2

I found a paper from 2005 analyzing the current sate of potentially polluting wrecks from World War 2. It has the information we need:

The database includes non-tank vessels of at least 400 gross tonnage (GT) holding petroleum-based oil as fuel/bunkers (and for operations) and tank vessels of at least 150 GT holding petroleum-based oil as cargo and fuel/bunkers (and for operations).... The resulting database includes 8,569 ... wrecks [containing oil], with 1,583 tank vessels and 6,986 non-tank vessels. Estimates of the likely volume of oil remaining onboard these wrecks were made, particularly when the volume of oil onboard was not known. A high estimate was calculated assuming that a tank vessel had at least 80 percent of its cargo capacity onboard, and bunkers were assumed to be 70 percent full.... The [result was] a high estimate of 20.4 million tonnes (6 billion gallons).

A low estimate would be 1.5 billion gallons (assuming 20 percent full at time of wreck). A reasonable average would be 3.8 billion gallons of oil spilled in maritime waters during World War 2

Keep in mind this is spread across the entire planet over about 5 years. Whereas the Exxon Valdez was about 15-20 times larger than ww2 era tankers and spilled in a single location.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill

Both the long-term and short-term effects of the oil spill have been studied.[28] Immediate effects included the deaths of 100,000 to as many as 250,000 seabirds, at least 2,800 sea otters, approximately 12 river otters, 300 harbor seals, 247 bald eagles, and 22 orcas, and an unknown number of salmon and herring.[8][29]

In 2003, fourteen years after the spill, a team from the University of North Carolina found that the remaining oil was lasting far longer than anticipated, which in turn had resulted in more long-term loss of many species than had been expected. The researchers found that at only a few parts per billion, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons caused a long-term increase in mortality rates. They reported that "species as diverse as sea otters, harlequin ducks and killer whales suffered large, long-term losses and that oiled mussel beds and other tidal shoreline habitats will take an estimated 30 years to recover."[30]

In 2006, a study done by the National Marine Fisheries Service in Juneau found that about 6 miles (9.7 km) of shoreline around Prince William Sound was still affected by the spill, with 101.6 tons of oil remaining in the area. Exxon Mobil denied any concerns over any remaining oil, stating that they anticipated a remaining fraction that they assert will not cause any long-term ecological impacts, according to the conclusions of the studies they had done: "We've done 350 peer-reviewed studies of Prince William Sound, and those studies conclude that Prince William Sound has recovered, it's healthy and it's thriving."[31] However, in 2007 a NOAA study concluded that this contamination can produce chronic low-level exposure, discourage subsistence where the contamination is heavy, and decrease the "wilderness character" of the area.[27]

The effects of the spill continued to be felt for many years afterwards. As of 2010 there were an estimated 23,000 US gallons (87 m3) of Valdez crude oil still in Alaska's sand and soil, breaking down at a rate estimated at less than 4% per year.[32]

On March 24, 2014, the twenty-fifth anniversary of the spill, NOAA scientists reported that some species seem to have recovered, with the sea otter the latest creature to return to pre-spill numbers. Scientists who have monitored the spill area for the last 25 years report that concern remains for one of two pods of local orca whales, with fears that one pod may eventually die out.[33] Federal scientists estimate that between 16,000 and 21,000 US gallons (61 to 79 m3) of oil remains on beaches in Prince William Sound and up to 450 miles (725 km) away. Some of the oil does not appear to have biodegraded at all. A USGS scientist who analyses the remaining oil along the coastline states that it remains among rocks and between tide marks. "The oil mixes with seawater and forms an emulsion...Left out, the surface crusts over but the inside still has the consistency of mayonnaise – or mousse."[34] Alaska state senator Berta Gardner is urging Alaskan politicians to demand that the US government force ExxonMobil to pay the final $92 million (£57 million) still owed from the court settlement. The major part of the money would be spent to finish cleaning up oiled beaches and attempting to restore the crippled herring population.[34]

All those birds...where are the bird lovers here who are so vehemently against wind energy? Why don’t they ever speak up against the oil industry for how many birds are routinely killed by it?

I imagine most of you here haven’t actually spent much time in BC’s Coastal waters. But if you have at all, then the prospect of allowing something like this to happen here should be nightmare inducing.

Sorry to Alberta, but BC’s economy is heavily reliant on industries like fishing and tourism which could be massively affected by such an incident. Our entire brand is Beautiful British Columbia. And that brand would not be well represented by images like this

[CapitalB]

Sorry to Alberta, but BC’s economy is heavily reliant on industries like fishing and tourism which could be massively affected by such an incident. Our entire brand is Beautiful British Columbia. And that brand would not be well represented by images like this

I think a lot of the people mad about this though are similar to the people that consider coal to be cleaner energy than solar. How do you debate / argue with people so detached from reality? It doesn't matter what you say they're masters of mental gymnastic.

[The Green Barbarian]

[
All those birds...where are the bird lovers here who are so vehemently against wind energy? Why don’t they ever speak up against the oil industry for how many birds are routinely killed by it?

Because stupid wind turbines kill millions of birds. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[The Green Barbarian]

I think a lot of the people mad about this though are similar to the people that consider coal to be cleaner energy than solar. How do you debate / argue with people so detached from reality? It doesn't matter what you say they're masters of mental gymnastic.

could you explain exactly why solar is "cleaner" than coal? I'd be interested in seeing your "mental gymnastics" on that one. If you are just going to babble on about the man-made climate change myth, at least take into account the amount of gases that are emitted building the stupid solar panels, if you want to have some semblance of creditability.