Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: chris gadsden on October 05, 2014, 09:41:25 AM
-
My first attempt at stardom. ;D ;D
http://youtu.be/n0NDv45gn-E
-
Good work Chris , your message was direct and to the point . After watching the video I was left wondering is this battle already lost or just beginning . We are told over and over in life to speak up as a democracy and write our MP's and government etc. It is a bit deflating when you see our MP's , Mayors , Professors and everyday good folk's voices being silenced . They have done everything within their legal power and it still was not enough . I was under the impression the pipeline was going through and if that is true what is the next step ?
-
Great work Chris,
The only way people can affect change is through education
Thanks for informing us.
-
Kinder Morgan declined to comment. The NEB. declined to comment. Of course they did.
That gentleman from Korea was right and public opinion should be taken into account a lot more than it has been.
Seems like the politician's and the Big Oil Boys listen to what the people are saying but are Not hearing us. One spill and this fishing paradise we enjoy will be greatly destroyed.
Wonderful video Chris. Your best work yet and I'm happy there are people like you willing to sacrifice your time, energy and money to help our planet. If we all did more, including me this world would be a much better place.
Thanks Chris !!!
-
Kinder Morgan declined to comment. The NEB. declined to comment. Of course they did.
That gentleman from Korea was right and public opinion should be taken into account a lot more than it has been.
Seems like the politician's and the Big Oil Boys listen to what the people are saying but are Not hearing us. One spill and this fishing paradise we enjoy will be greatly destroyed.
Wonderful video Chris. Your best work yet and I'm happy there are people like you willing to sacrifice your time, energy and money to help our planet. If we all did more, including me this world would be a much better place.
Thanks Chris !!!
So, the Kinder Morgan pipeline is 60+ years old and is worn out. It has delivered up to 300,000 barrels of petroleum products to the Lower Mainland every day for this time and I am wondering how we are going to get this energy to the Lower Mainland when this pipeline is, inevitably, shut down?
-
Gord that's the question the NIMBY's dont want to answer
-
So, the Kinder Morgan pipeline is 60+ years old and is worn out. It has delivered up to 300,000 barrels of petroleum products to the Lower Mainland every day for this time and I am wondering how we are going to get this energy to the Lower Mainland when this pipeline is, inevitably, shut down?
Was wondering that myself ... fine and good to bitch about this pipeline but who will be the first to park their vehicles?
Sorry, but I'm in favor this particular pipeline.
-
Another tradegy with this is the Coquihalla river.
Basically forgotten imao.
Once great fishing for steelhead and trout .
This and of course the building of the hwy basically ruined this river for any fishery.
-
why don't the land owners have a say in this, all 2200 hundred of them. i don't understand how they can lay pipe on land they do not own. how would you feel if your land was ripped up to lay a new pipe down especially if your against the project as a whole. if we were using this fossil fuel for domestic use and not for export my views might change but the video clearly states 100% export. also leave the park your vehicles bs. todays vehicles emit a small fraction of emissions of what they use too and burn much less fuel. also where would the provincial governments tax revenue come in if it weren't for the average joe putting fuel in his car. i would love to see the numbers of how much industry burns fossil fuel compared to the public, i bet we carry most of the tax burden too. all these natural resources are headed to asain markets while they are still worth something to fuel their industry so they can say goodbye to the sun forever because of the pollution. people > big business.
-
So, the Kinder Morgan pipeline is 60+ years old and is worn out. It has delivered up to 300,000 barrels of petroleum products to the Lower Mainland every day for this time and I am wondering how we are going to get this energy to the Lower Mainland when this pipeline is, inevitably, shut down?
Kinder Morgan doesn't seem to think it's worn out or have any plans to shut it down.
This isn't about maintaining BC's supply. Some 70% of the 300,000 barrels of product currently shipped keep on going when they get to the Lower Mainland and the number of tankers leaving Vancouver has tripled to 60 since 2005. The planned 400,000 bpd expansion is not to maintain domestic supply; it is entirely intended for export, will carry bitumen that we can't refine here and could see more than 400 tankers a year. It is quite likely that rather than the partially loaded Aframax tankers now in use, fully loaded Panamax tankers will be used and eventually possible that Suezmax tankers will be put in service.
This isn't about consumers demanding more petroleum products. It's about Alberta oil producers seeking to expand markets and a pipeline with greater capacity than Enbridge running through the city and terminating deep inside a congested harbour. A person may or may not agree with the expansion, but let's look at the real facts and the real risks when making that decision.
-
Yep, this isn't about providing oil for BC its all about gaining more wealth for those involved. Greed is the word.
Richard Kinder is the owner of Kinder Morgan and is a billionaire a couple times over. Estimated worth = 8.2 billion dollars.
While crude oil can be devastating to environments when spilled, diluted bitumen from the tar sands is even more difficult to clean up. When mined, tar sands bitumen is so heavy and thick that it can only travel through pipelines when combined with chemical diluents, including benzene (a human carcinogen). When spilled in waterways, the heavy bitumen sinks to the bottom, so conventional clean-up techniques have little effect. At the same time, the chemical diluents such as benzene evaporate and cause toxic clouds in the air.
What are the chances of an oil spill?
According to The Mariners Group, there were 3.2 major oil spills per year over the last 37 years worldwide. However, over the last ten years, that number has climbed to 8.6 major oil spills per year, and in the last five years, soared to 14.8 major oil spills each year.
Oil also enters the ocean through the routine maintenance of ships, and from land-based sources such as the refinery and Kinder-Morgan oil port in Burrard Inlet. Approximately 706 million gallons of waste oil (not oil "spills") enter the ocean every year.
There is also a risk that a tanker could go aground right off our coast. The Inlet where the tankers currently pass through is a very narrow and shallow body of water. The current Aframax tankers that pass through the Burrard Inlet barely clear the ocean floor. Because of the weight and size of the vessels, tankers navigating through the Inlet must wait until daylight high tide before passing through, where they can draw 15 m and clear the ocean floor by 1.5m.
Suexmax tankers, which are 8 metres wider and draw up to 5m deeper than the current tankers, are too big to pass through certain parts of the Inlet. The Second Narrows CN rail bridge is the narrowest and most dangerous point.
Lastly, our coast is located in an earthquake zone. It is not only a tanker going aground, or a leak from the pipeline that could see mass amounts of oil destroying the coast.
It is estimated that the financial damage caused by a potential large-scale oil spill in the Burrard Inlet could cost approximately $40 billion. This number is based on research done from other oil spills and the cost incurred based on the cost per barrel of oil that was spilled.
That $40 billion includes clean-up costs, resident evacuations, tourism loss, losses to the BC fishing industry, health costs and port losses in annual wages and salaries.
But of course, the cost of an oil spill to our natural ecosystems, to places like Stanley Park—which would be destroyed—and to Vancouver’s international reputation as a “Beautiful Green City” is incalculable.
Who would be held liable if an oil spill occurred? Who would pay for all these costs?
Once the oil is on a tanker, the oil companies and pipeline companies can claim they are no longer responsible. As a result, ship owners often register their ships in countries that allow them to set up almost invisible companies. When the ship experiences a big spill, the company just goes bankrupt and disappears.
There are national and international "compensation funds" in place that may be accessed in the event of a major ship-source oil spill. But the maximum amount available from all those funds combined is still billions of dollars less than what would be required to recover from a serious marine spill.
Therefore, the municipal, provincial and federal governments (and taxpayers) would be left having to pay the majority of the costs associated with an oil spill.
For more on oil spill liability, click here to read a 2013 report published by the Wilderness Committee, Living Oceans Society, Georgia Strait Alliance and West Coast Environmental Law.
Just a little info on what and why oil is being brought here and what the consequences could be. This oil isn't for you or I its for Mr. Morgan, the ( already a billionaire ), the politicians with their dirty hands in his pocket and for Asian locations.
-
Oh if anyone wants more info just Google wildnerness committee oil spill. Thats where I obtained the previous info.
Good Fishing All 8)
-
So, much like a thread on fish farms, this will become a cut and paste war between the pro industry and anti everything camps.
More proof that you can't argue "articles of faith".
You will not convince me to change my opinion anymore than I will convince you. I just wanted to point out that there are people who enjoy the outdoors and want it to remain clean and unpolluted just like you but who disagree with the anti-everything position.
GordJ, in favour of flossing, pipelines and critical thinking.
-
You will not convince me to change my opinion...........
GordJ, in favour of............critical thinking.
-
So, much like a thread on fish farms, this will become a cut and paste war between the pro industry and anti everything camps.
More proof that you can't argue "articles of faith".
You will not convince me to change my opinion anymore than I will convince you. I just wanted to point out that there are people who enjoy the outdoors and want it to remain clean and unpolluted just like you but who disagree with the anti-everything position.
GordJ, in favour of flossing, pipelines and critical thinking.
Yeah, isn't it though. I never participated in the fish farm talk very much but it was as you say Gord. And I'm not so so much against the pipeline as I am over the shipping the oil over our precious waters that worries me. One spill and man, who knows. Its crazy thinking that if I took my kids to the beach they may see birds covered in oil or other unsightly scenes. And the loss. Incalculable I think is a good word. Its good that Chris brings this to the forefront and if it does turn out to be like the fish farm talks, well. It is what it is.
Good Fishing All !!!!
-
You will not convince me to change my opinion...........
GordJ, in favour of............critical thinking.
Great point. I should have added "because all you do is copy and paste from special interest groups" but your point is right on.
-
@ GordJ, so what's wrong copy and pasting ? You think I am just going to pull all the facts and truth out of my own brain. Hell these guys know more than me. Where do you really think anyone gets any information that they speak of. They hear it from a source. Whether you repeat it verbatim or cut and paste it it makes no difference. Forming an opinion is hard when you don't have knowledge of it. I don't get your argument at all.
-
why don't the land owners have a say in this, all 2200 hundred of them. i don't understand how they can lay pipe on land they do not own. how would you feel if your land was ripped up to lay a new pipe down especially if your against the project as a whole. if we were using this fossil fuel for domestic use and not for export my views might change but the video clearly states 100% export. also leave the park your vehicles bs. todays vehicles emit a small fraction of emissions of what they use too and burn much less fuel. also where would the provincial governments tax revenue come in if it weren't for the average joe putting fuel in his car. i would love to see the numbers of how much industry burns fossil fuel compared to the public, i bet we carry most of the tax burden too. all these natural resources are headed to asain markets while they are still worth something to fuel their industry so they can say goodbye to the sun forever because of the pollution. people > big business.
Sad to say this but they actually own a right of way through the Coquihalla valley right beside the river,similar to a railway.
I assume this was purchased way back when ,even before the highway was built.I thought it was built in the 70's but according to a post it's older than that.
Agree about the fish farm forum though to much info from links,people should use their own words.
-
... Forming an opinion is hard when you don't have knowledge of it.......
Unfortunately, too many form an opinion without any knowledge of it....that's the problem.
-
@ GordJ, so what's wrong copy and pasting ? You think I am just going to pull all the facts and truth out of my own brain. Hell these guys know more than me. Where do you really think anyone gets any information that they speak of. They hear it from a source. Whether you repeat it verbatim or cut and paste it it makes no difference. Forming an opinion is hard when you don't have knowledge of it. I don't get your argument at all.
When you copy and paste an article from the fish farm site and I counter with an article from the anti fish farm site we are just repeating press releases and there is no unbiased information. Both sides will post propaganda to support their views and believe it or not both sides will lie and pretend that they aren't lying.
For instance, do you really believe that an oil spill will destroy Stanley Park? Stanley Park is almost completely above sea level and I don't think there will be much oil in Lost Lagoon so it will not be destroyed, nor will the Aquarium, so how will Stanley Park be destroyed?
Or, 2,200 properties will be affected by the pipeline? There is already a pipeline in place that runs through almost all of these properties and almost every one of these property owners bought their property with the pipeline in place but when you read the anti position it sounds like each of these properties will be unusable and this is not the case.
When you copy and paste propaganda and I counter with propaganda from the other side it doesn't add to debate it just adds debris.
-
Great point. I should have added "because all you do is copy and paste from special interest groups" but your point is right on.
Special interest groups may have a one sided perspective that needs filtering, but so do the promoters of whatever project is under consideration. Critical thinking is taking both perspectives and arriving at a balanced understanding that is, in theory, closer to the truth than either of the extremes.
The bottom line for me is that there is risk, at least as much from Kinder Morgan's proposal as from Enbridge's, and although there are arguments that support the need for the expanded pipeline capacity (supplying BC consumption is not one of them), there is also a need for the proposals to mitigate that risk and absorb it into corporate balance sheets and a need for the province to be compensated for assuming it by some mechanism such as a transit tariff on the product shipped. Until such agreement is reached, the pipelines are a bad deal for BC even if they are a benefit for the transnational oil and pipeline companies and their shareholders.
Though you may disagree with the people you say are against everything, without them, the corporate world would run roughshod over governments beyond what they currently do and we as citizens would end up bearing all the risk and and all the consequences while subsidizing corporate profit taking.
-
Though you may disagree with the people you say are against everything, without them, the corporate world would run roughshod over governments beyond what they currently do and we as citizens would end up bearing all the risk and and all the consequences while subsidizing corporate profit taking.
This is your opinion and a political statement but it is not a fact. Before we had an industry around professional protesting we had a country that thrived for over 200 years. The Canada that is here came about without professional protesters. There are, among other safeguards, regulatory bodies in place and I am not convinced that we need professional anti's to keep us in line. But your's is the kind of statement that is made all the time and the people that agree with most of your point of view accept it as fact and copy and paste it to prove their point.
-
In the last 30 or 40 years there has been a sea change in the nature of society that has put social values and the welfare of citizens second to the economy. Where corporations once served society, society now serves corporations. This change began with Thatcher and Reagan and was supported by the work of Milton Friedman and an enormous network of supposed think tanks funded by the businesses that benefited from the refocusing of priorities. It has over the decades spread widely and is now broadly represented in national and regional governments. It is best captured by Thatchers comment that there is no such thing as society; there are just individual men and women and families.
Because of that, government now caters to the needs of business rather than the needs of citizens and because business is by nature well organized, well funded and well connected, it has the ear of government where society, being less organized and less funded, doesn`t except through the protests that arise against particularly egregious actions. The system isn`t a conspiracy, it`s the natural offshoot of the evolution of the capitalist system. You may not be personally aware of the change but there is an enormous body of research and literature that documents it.
To call it nothing more than an opinion and a political statement and ignore it for that reason belies every principle of critical thinking.
-
In the last 30 or 40 years there has been a sea change in the nature of society that has put social values and the welfare of citizens second to the economy. Where corporations once served society, society now serves corporations. This change began with Thatcher and Reagan and was supported by the work of Milton Friedman and an enormous network of supposed think tanks funded by the businesses that benefited from the refocusing of priorities. It has over the decades spread widely and is now broadly represented in national and regional governments. It is best captured by Thatchers comment that there is no such thing as society; there are just individual men and women and families.
Because of that, government now caters to the needs of business rather than the needs of citizens and because business is by nature well organized, well funded and well connected, it has the ear of government where society, being less organized and less funded, doesn`t except through the protests that arise against particularly egregious actions. The system isn`t a conspiracy, it`s the natural offshoot of the evolution of the capitalist system. You may not be personally aware of the change but there is an enormous body of research and literature that documents it.
To call it nothing more than an opinion and a political statement and ignore it for that reason belies every principle of critical thinking.
To attempt to obfuscate the discussion with a dissertation on Reagan's and Thatcher's economic policy is not really commenting on my post. Or, in fact, relevant to the thread. I stated that your comment was not a fact but a political statement and you came back with some diatribe meant to show how incredibly well versed you are in economics and, conversely, how sadly deficient I am and then to completely discredit my post you attacked my claim that I like the concept of critical thinking.
I didn't have to go search very hard to find that HBC and the CN or CP didn't very often put social values or the welfare of citizens ahead of the "economy" 150 years ago so I am not really sure where this "sea change" you speak of came from but I am willing to concede your point. Hey, wait a minute, didn't big corporations hunt whales to near extinction? How was this societally beneficial? Was that a "sea change"?
Maybe I gave in too easily?
I would suggest that governments have always catered "to the needs of business" or nothing would ever have been done. Of course there would be a lot more beavers. And empty land. "Hey lets build a railway to the Pacific Ocean so that our citizens can vacation in Vancouver" isn't a rallying cry that resonates through history. They built the railway to make money.
And I stand by my analysis of your statement that "Though you may disagree with the people you say are against everything, without them, the corporate world would run roughshod over governments beyond what they currently do and we as citizens would end up bearing all the risk and and all the consequences while subsidizing corporate profit taking." is political.
-
Good post absolon.
It's pretty easy to buy people (politicians) off who are supposed to be representing the best interests of eveyone. People and business.
-
Does our welfare not depend on a healthy economy? Why should we not think economy first? Where would we be with out it? Just asking. The economic thinking of some posts are not making sense to me at this time.
-
The people, him, her, them and us, are the economy. No us, no economy.
-
The people, him, her, them and us, are the economy. No us, no economy.
Thanks Aqua. I was thinking along the line of if there was no economy, forgien investment, and out of country trade we would still be hunters and gatherers living in caves. Kind of have to thank big industry and all the hard workers for our comfort we enjoy today. Hats off to the farmers, ranchers, minors, rig hands, pipeliners, etc, and the people that do not get to spend very much time at home "Truckers" to bring us our needs and wants. All that are directed by big industry. Basically, I think if it was not for people that have big bucks to create an industry there would be no tourism, very few working opportunities unless you can pick cotton and low lifes like me would not be where I am today. Happily Unemployed. :)
-
Weird statement. Unless you truely are happily unemployed.
-
Weird statement. Unless you truely are happily unemployed.
Now I know you really, really like me since you jump on me so much TB. :)
"happily unemployed" = Retired.
-
Does our welfare not depend on a healthy economy? Why should we not think economy first? Where would we be with out it? Just asking. The economic thinking of some posts are not making sense to me at this time.
Of course everyone needs a healthy economy ,not against growth and revenue for our province.
We need to be careful about the goals of big business .They are not the same as our own.To blindly trust them to do the right thing for our beautiful province I think is naive.
We cant compare the past and present, back then they didnt call it development or progress.It was called nation building.
There was lots of fish, wood ,minerals all ready to be harvested.
Things have changed now, we have to look for sustainability and realize that we have finite resources that could be depleted forever. We have to be more careful managing what we have.I think this is were "big business " can be shortsighted,only realizing a short term balance sheet over people and environment.
-
Of course everyone needs a healthy economy ,not against growth and revenue for our province.
We need to be careful about the goals of big business .They are not the same as our own.To blindly trust them to do the right thing for our beautiful province I think is naive.
We cant compare the past and present, back then they didnt call it development or progress.It was called nation building.
There was lots of fish, wood ,minerals all ready to be harvested.
Things have changed now, we have to look for sustainability and realize that we have finite resources that could be depleted forever. We have to be more careful managing what we have.I think this is were "big business " can be shortsighted,only realizing a short term balance sheet over people and environment.
So very true. We have to also see how the "big business" has improved over the years. As one poster said, anti every things are needed and I feel big business has responded with improvement. I sure do not see things being done today that was done even forty years ago. There is always room for improvement also. There are jobs for that also. Be an anti every thing or work and make an improvement in your chosen profession. :)
-
To attempt to obfuscate the discussion with a dissertation on Reagan's and Thatcher's economic policy is not really commenting on my post. Or, in fact, relevant to the thread. I stated that your comment was not a fact but a political statement and you came back with some diatribe meant to show how incredibly well versed you are in economics and, conversely, how sadly deficient I am and then to completely discredit my post you attacked my claim that I like the concept of critical thinking.
I didn't have to go search very hard to find that HBC and the CN or CP didn't very often put social values or the welfare of citizens ahead of the "economy" 150 years ago so I am not really sure where this "sea change" you speak of came from but I am willing to concede your point. Hey, wait a minute, didn't big corporations hunt whales to near extinction? How was this societally beneficial? Was that a "sea change"?
Maybe I gave in too easily?
I would suggest that governments have always catered "to the needs of business" or nothing would ever have been done. Of course there would be a lot more beavers. And empty land. "Hey lets build a railway to the Pacific Ocean so that our citizens can vacation in Vancouver" isn't a rallying cry that resonates through history. They built the railway to make money.
And I stand by my analysis of your statement that "Though you may disagree with the people you say are against everything, without them, the corporate world would run roughshod over governments beyond what they currently do and we as citizens would end up bearing all the risk and and all the consequences while subsidizing corporate profit taking." is political.
You can call it whatever you want and you can interpret what I said however you like. As someone pointed out not to far back, not understanding something has never stopped anyone from having a strong opinion. But critical thinking does require that one steps outside one's box to follow up other lines of thinking one is not familiar with before rejecting them outright. A good argument against anything is based on facts rather than aspersions about motives or one's unfavourable impressions of the messenger.
-
The people, him, her, them and us, are the economy. No us, no economy.
The people are the members of society. The economy is the summary of the transactions between the members of society. The received wisdom is that facilitating the transactions benefits society as a whole. The reality is that it benefits a segment of society much more than the rest; that it is the root of the increasing levels of inequality found today, of stagnating middle class wages and higher structural unemployment. Providing support to corporations as engines of the economy concentrates those benefits to corporate management and to investors who may not even be members of the society and cuts support to education, social support nets, the medical system and those other government functions that provide broad societal benefit. That support comes at cost to the broader society both in terms of benefit foregone and actual out of pocket costs. Corporate society returns the favour by importing cheap labour to displace the members of society and sending profits and dividends out of the society.
The oil pipelines are a good example. Society in BC will pick up the cost of the risk, transnational oil companies operating in Alberta will pick up the benefits and profits of moving product to market. Run of river power producers are another good example. BC consumers will pay artificially high power prices in order to subsidize the development of a private power production infrastructure operated by transnational corporations who will profit by operating that infrastructure.
It isn't that development is bad; it is that use and development of publicly owned resources should return a real and tangible benefit to society to justify that use or risk and that all the short and long term costs and risks associated with earning a profit must be covered by those who are receiving that profit before they put any money in their own pockets.
-
well said. not all of us are against all development. i just for one am against Alberta's dirty oil and how much are Conservative government promotes it. one world hits hardest for me. SUSTAINABILITY.
-
Going to this today as I spent time with the film crew on the Fraser this summer, not sure how much I will be in the final cut. https://www.facebook.com/#!/Raincoast/photos/a.210258749010459.52055.206766672693000/775521699150825/?type=1&theater
-
Going to this today as I spent time with the film crew on the Fraser this summer, not sure how much I will be in the final cut.
Wear something loud so your easy to pick out. :)