Northern Gateway pipeline approved with 209 conditions

Love it or hate it now we'll get to see if Enbridge can actually come through on the 209 requirements that the Government laid out.

But on the plus side there's still talk about a refinery in Kitimat rather than shipping diluted bitumen down Douglas Channel. So if Enbridge can actually comply with the requirements and someone builds a refinery it could turn out to be a boon for BC otherwise this is just the Fed's politicking for something that may never happen.

Crispie Clark is also promoting a refinery at Prince Rupert, or was til her ex-husband joined the company. As far as shipping goes, sounds like a better deal.

I don't think any pipeline is going to be built unless the company agrees to give the natives all the profits plus some extra for the aggravation of having to count all that money. They can tie it up in court for years. Already green-native coalitions have launched lawsuits in anticipation of this approval. I would guess the 209 requirements are the least of the problem, and probably come with a nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat from the govt.

I think it will turn out that BC is closed for business, at least as far as new oil projects are concerned. Kinder Morgan is running into all sorts of opposition in the lower mainland as well. While the Premier Nations don't have as much sway with that one, the local mayors can make it very difficult for them too, and the FN's may just use protests instead of lawsuits - see if CC is any tougher than McGuinty.

Maybe it will all come to a head, and the govts find a way to stop all the extortion by the FN's - that would be good. Unfortunately I don't trust the Cons or even the BC Libs in making sure the environmental risks are adequately addressed. I'm for pipelines, but I'm also for the concept that those that profit form them have to pay to clean up any spills. All the costs, not dump the rest of them on the taxpayer.

If it's such a great thing, why would there need to be 209 conditions for Enbridge to meet? The last time there was a leak in pipeline owned by Enbridge, they only noticed/gave a damn 17 hours later.

This is BS. Expect the FN in BC to fight this as well as a bunch of environmental groups as well. Herr Harper and his anti-science, oil soaked cronies strike again.

She's recused herself from the refinery discussion, which probably means it's a go. I guess the money her ex and friends made from the sail of BC Rail can now be reinvested into the oil industry.

But the people I saw on TV should take a step back and stop frothing at the mouth about this pipeline. If the Feds keep their word and make Enbridge comply with the 209 conditions plus the Provincial ones there's little or no chance the pipeline ever get's built because Enbridge is such a gong show that they'll never be able to fulfill their obligations. Then we have the natives who can use our money to tie it up in court for years if not decades, not to mention the referendum possibility.

Hell if they get this pipeline built it'll be a miracle and we have a better chance of seeing the mythical Kitimat refinery being built than we do of seeing Enbridge make a penny off this fiasco and the Feds know this making their okaying of the pipeline nothing more than an exercise in vote buying for Alberta and Saskatchewan.

They can claim that they're working for those provinces, while still protecting BC with the conditions which means it's a win win situation for them. Probably no pipeline but lot's of votes and if it doesn't fly, it's someone elses fault not the Conservatives. When you think about it, it's great politicing.

I'm very worried about the BANANAS (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) We've always had them, but they seem to have more influence these days, where people forget where a good chunk of our economy comes from.

For a guy who complains about the booze industry, you appear pretty keen on the oil industry.

Guess there's not as much of a bad side.

I don't see the connection between booze and oil?

I would ban booze if I thought that would reduce the damage it causes - I don't think prohibition works tho. I would ban oil if we had a real alternative to use that was environmentally less harmful. Don't see one on the horizon. But bottom line, people will drink, and people will use energy. Banning booze at least wouldn't cost lives the way banning oil would. Personally I think we've passed the point of no return, we're like yeast that eat sugar and shit alcohol, poisoning us in the end, as Zippy has it. I think we're going to have a massive dieback at some point. Guess you might as well drink up.

I don't think the oil industry would like me very much tho. I've always thought that the environment should be included in any cost-benefit analysis of an industry. And for certain, the people profiting from a venture should also bear all the burden of ameliorating any damage. No privatizing profits, socializing losses. I'd like to see us use more an approach like Norway's to the oil industry. Doubt I'd be bought a lot of beers for talking like that at Ft Mac.

BANANA's - never heard that one. It's a good one.

I think most of the opposition (except for those bananas) could be silenced once they are promised enough of a slice of the economic pie.

The economic sense of building the pipeline is inescapable.

Why wouldn't some more suggestions be made?

Also without a list it's hard to make a judgement on the nature of the conditions don't you think?

One condition could be that the number to call in case of an accident that would get posted on signs must connect to a service that has round the clock French and English service.

Another could be about the size of the posts that mark a river crossing.

Or to set a standard for the education of preschool day care for the families of pipeline workers.

I bet most of the conditions are minor things, unrelated to an engineering problem. I would expect that a pipeline company would have a firm grasp on the mechanics of a pipeline.



And this is why no one cares what you have to think or say, outside of their own amusement in poking you to get a reaction.

That's ironic coming from you, straight shooter.

BANANA's - never heard that one. It's a good one.

I think most of the opposition (except for those bananas) could be silenced once they are promised enough of a slice of the economic pie.

The economic sense of building the pipeline is inescapable.

No they wouldn't.

I think they might.

I'm talking about those who might be affected (even marginally) by the construction of the pipeline - people who live in the area (i.e. First Nations), not the outside do-gooders who couldn't see the benefits of economic development if they were run over by a truckload of them.

People think though, that because it's the mouths of First Nations and local agitators moving, then that's who is making up the actual opposition. It's not. It's big foreign money funneled through things like the Tides foundation.

These "grassroots" protests begin in muti-million dollar offices high above San Fransisco and such.

So would the opinions of the more wild eyes opponents who find themselves in a meeting room screaming out their objections be changed even if the money wasn't there? No. But would the direction that put them in that meeting room exist? No. So would they be there? No.

You're right that the details matter - it could be 209,000 conditions and it wouldn't matter if they are so generous as to not have any meaning. The devil is in the details.

For example:

Alaska requires companies to have a response plan capable of dealing with spills of up to 300,000 barrels. In Canada, the current requirement is only for spills up to 70,000 barrels. To put that in persepctive, Exxon Valdez spilled up to 750,000 barrels and the ship was capable of carrying over 1.4 million barrels.

Alaska requires spill responders be able to reach the spill site within 72 hours, while Canada allows 72 hours plus travel time, which can more the double the response time.

Another example would be a recent US decision that Oil Sands bitumen is not really "oil" and therefore pipeline companies are exempt from a requirement to contribute to the federal "oil" spill clean-up fund when they transport it. All despite the fact that Oil Sands bitumen is more harmful to the environment and more difficult to clean up.

As to your last comment about engineering requirement and your expectation that oil companies would have a firm grasp of how to build a pipeline- well really at issue is the standard to which the pipe should be built. Should it be the absolute minimum legal standard? Should it be able to withstand an earhquake? If so, of what magnitude? Etc, Etc.

Federally-regulated pipeline safety incidents (fires, leaks and spills) have doubled in the past decade, totalling 1,047 incidents between 2000 and 2012...one incident per every 500km of federally-regulated pipeline. Leaks and spills alone trippled. And that's only federally regulated pipes - i.e. the ones that cross provincial boundaries.

British Columbia had the most incidents at 279. Alberta was #2 with 244, Ontario was 3rd at 146.

So I think people have healthy reason to doubt that the oil companies have it all under control and nothing bad could happen.