Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

hatrack

(59,587 posts)
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 09:34 AM Jan 2015

BC Govt. Dumps Northern Gateway Tar Sands Pipeline: "Trust Me Is Not Good Enough In This Case"

Efforts to expand production from the Alberta tar sands suffered a significant setback on Friday when the provincial government of British Columbia rejected a pipeline project because of environmental shortcomings.

In a strongly worded statement, the government of the province said it was not satisfied with the pipeline company's oil spill response plans. The rejection of the pipeline – which was to have given Alberta an outlet to Pacific coast ports and markets in China – further raises the stakes on another controversial tar sands pipeline, Keystone XL.

EDIT

British Columbia, in its official submission to a pipeline review panel, said the company had failed to demonstrate an adequate clean-up plan for the Enbridge Northern Gateway project. It set five new conditions for the project's approval. "Northern Gateway has presented little evidence about how it will respond in the event of a spill," Christopher Jones, a lawyer representing the province, said in a statement to the federal government panel reviewing the project.

"It is not clear from the evidence that Northern Gateway will in fact be able to respond effectively to spills either from the pipeline itself, or from tankers transporting diluted bitumen," Jones added. Jones said the pipeline would cross over remote and extremely difficult terrain, with pristine rivers that could be devastated in the event of a spill. He said those considerations compelled the province to hold the pipeline company to a higher standard. "Trust me is not good enough in this case."

EDIT

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/01/tar-sands-canada-pipeline-enbridge

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BC Govt. Dumps Northern Gateway Tar Sands Pipeline: "Trust Me Is Not Good Enough In This Case" (Original Post) hatrack Jan 2015 OP
Common sense newfie11 Jan 2015 #1
So many in the US are stuck to the 'trust me' mantra riversedge Jan 2015 #2
So it will probably get sent to the coast by rail OnlinePoker Jan 2015 #3
Rail may turn out to be a good impediment to full scale marketing of the oil cprise Jan 2015 #6
Rail is a federal jurisdiction with a pre existing infrastructure OnlinePoker Jan 2015 #8
It does not have arbitrary capacity or overhead cprise Jan 2015 #10
Strange it isn't good enough for Canadians but it okay for the US. Historic NY Jan 2015 #4
I just noticed the date on your article. OnlinePoker Jan 2015 #5
Trust me shouldn't be good enough here either madokie Jan 2015 #7
Be careful what you wish for pscot Jan 2015 #9

OnlinePoker

(5,722 posts)
3. So it will probably get sent to the coast by rail
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 10:44 AM
Jan 2015

This will be even worse since derailments happen all the time and the rails normally run through BC alongside rivers and lakes.

cprise

(8,445 posts)
6. Rail may turn out to be a good impediment to full scale marketing of the oil
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 03:28 PM
Jan 2015

It imposes a logistical and economic cost that reduces demand for the product.

However, I don't understand the insinuation that BC or other government could restrict oil piplines in response to spill risks, but be unable to do so for rail transport.

OnlinePoker

(5,722 posts)
8. Rail is a federal jurisdiction with a pre existing infrastructure
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 06:17 PM
Jan 2015

The only thing that would have to be built (or expanded) would be the deep water tanker ports, also a federal jurisdiction. Since the Harper government has no qualms against wrecking the environment to bolster the economy, approval for any of these projects would be unlikely to face much scrutiny, though it will be difficult to sign off on it with the federal election coming in October (unless it looks like they're going down to defeat...then they might just do it out of spite).

cprise

(8,445 posts)
10. It does not have arbitrary capacity or overhead
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 10:25 PM
Jan 2015

Which is why they are pushing for a pipeline instead... so they can pump and sell MORE.

Historic NY

(37,451 posts)
4. Strange it isn't good enough for Canadians but it okay for the US.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 11:10 AM
Jan 2015

funny how they don't trust their own companies.

OnlinePoker

(5,722 posts)
5. I just noticed the date on your article.
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 02:18 PM
Jan 2015

No wonder I couldn't find anything about it in the news feeds. The provincial government set 5 conditions and the feds set 200+ for it to go ahead. The project has not been dumped.

madokie

(51,076 posts)
7. Trust me shouldn't be good enough here either
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 06:08 PM
Jan 2015

Only benefit to this pipeline is a few already rich asshole will make some more of what they have way too much of already. It won't have any effect on me or you, monetary wise except for cleaning the shit up when it spills, we'd be on the hook for most of that cost when it happens. Ultimately that is.

Canada wants to sell the shit to china then make them ship it across their own country.

I have a feeling theres more to it than just that one aspect. Maybe the domestic oil companies see a way to get their crude on the open market that looks so good to them I don't know but I don't trust them one second. In the end We loose you can bet on that

pscot

(21,024 posts)
9. Be careful what you wish for
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 10:14 PM
Jan 2015

Oil ports in the Arctic would be the absolute worst possible outcome. You know they have the plans all drawn up

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»BC Govt. Dumps Northern G...