Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumBC 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
newfie11
(8,159 posts)Not found much in US politics
riversedge
(70,285 posts)OnlinePoker
(5,725 posts)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)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
(5,725 posts)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)Which is why they are pushing for a pipeline instead... so they can pump and sell MORE.
Historic NY
(37,452 posts)funny how they don't trust their own companies.
OnlinePoker
(5,725 posts)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)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)Oil ports in the Arctic would be the absolute worst possible outcome. You know they have the plans all drawn up