Get your environmental concerns off Joe Oliver’s lawn

The Natural Resources Minister takes on the environmental regulatory system, environmentalists, celebrity, air travel, foreigners, America and civil law.

Unfortunately, there are environmental and other radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade. Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth. No forestry. No mining. No oil. No gas. No more hydro-electric dams.

These groups threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda. They seek to exploit any loophole they can find, stacking public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill good projects. They use funding from foreign special interest groups to undermine Canada’s national economic interest. They attract jet-setting celebrities with some of the largest personal carbon footprints in the world to lecture Canadians not to develop our natural resources. Finally, if all other avenues have failed, they will take a quintessential American approach: sue everyone and anyone to delay the project even further.

This is perhaps reminiscent of the rhetoric directed at the NDP in the House last month—see here, here and here.




Browse

Get your environmental concerns off Joe Oliver’s lawn

  1. I don’t think Joe Oliver understands that being part of an “open and accountable government” means that you have to hear from people who might oppose a project or two of which you are in favour (the “open” side of that marketing tagline).

    • Transparency and accountability are unCanadian.  Troubles lapping at our shores, you know. 

    • I know… that was then, this is now……..

      “When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent is frankly when it’s rapidly losing its moral authority to govern.”

      Stephen Harper 2005

  2. If he’s looking for a pitched batttle out here in B.C. , this is the way to get one started.

    • Is he intentionally looking for a fight, or just too stupid to avoid starting one?

      • Hard to tell with these people, isn’t it?  Could be a combo – a stupid strategy. 

        • Paul Wells appears to think they are gearing up to campaign by making environmental groups the enemy. Rightwingers have a kneejerk hatred of environmentalists, but I don’t think most Canadians are so bigoted.

          • If they want to play that hand this is way too Joe McCarthy for B.C.

  3. It has not dawned on the Harper govt that most of our issues are global, not national.

    Climate change is not just a Canadian concern….everybody on the planet is affected.

    Economic growth is not just a Canadian concern…..everybody on the planet is affected.

    So everybody on the planet is going to want to have a say in this, and Harper won’t be able to stop them.

    As to ‘special foreign interest groups’….most of the oil companies are foreign owned, and they’ve thrown tons of money into the fight against environmental interests.

    • “As to ‘special foreign interest groups’….most of the oil companies are foreign owned, and they’ve thrown tons of money into the fight against environmental interests.”

      And hundreds of tons more money into our actual economy and tax coffers.

      • Hey, we could make big bucks by selling bulk heroin ….is that a good idea too?

        Or nukes…we could do that.  Or maybe plague…there’s a market for that.

        Mustard gas….people used to use that until they realized…um….never mind.

        • Oil = Heroin/nukes/the plague/mustard gas.

          Perhaps your most addled comment to date, which is saying something.  Congrats.

          “So everybody on the planet is going to want to have a say in this, and Harper won’t be able to stop them.”

          Thankfully, it won’t be necessary to hear from people from yours. 

          • It all comes back to harm Canadians, no matter how many bucks we make in the initial sale.

            Yes, you’ll hear from lots of people like me.

            In this case Alberta makes all the money, BC gets all the risks….you think you can sell that idea to BC?

          • “In this case Alberta makes all the money, BC gets all the risks….you think you can sell that idea to BC?”

            Of the many formidable obstacles to be overcome, approval of the Govt. of BC to actually build the thing will not be one.

          • Actually a substantial portion of the revenue from the oil sands is spent in Ontario. It is not a resource that benefits Alberta alone.

          • @MikeRedmond:disqus 

            A substantial amount of money made in Ontario is spent in Alberta.

            Yes indeedie, money gets around

            And your point is…?

          • You do realize we’re facing the ‘dirty oil’ rap internationally don’t you?  The oil sands p.r. has been so bad so far maybe another approach besides attacking the messenger might work.

          • I’ll pay more attention to you and your international “dirty oil” fellow travelers when you demonstrated you’ve stopped using it.

          •  And I’ll pay more attention to people who suggest I shouldn’t eat a lb of butter a day when they stop eating it.

          • @GreatWallsofFire:disqus 

            There’s your little dream bubble again.  You want it, therefore everybody wants it. LOL

  4. Not to split hairs, but does keystone really fit the definition of ‘diversification’ of Canada’s trade?

    • I believe his comments were directed at the American opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline, which does fit the definition of diversification.

      • Diversification in Canadian trade has long meant moving away from resource based economy.  You could construct a defintiion involving finding new markets that could be grammatically correct, I guess, but it wouldn’t be the commonly accepted meaning. 

        • There are two meanings to the word. Diversifying as you describe it is one. There has been a long history (going back before Trudeau’s “third option”. the current discussion in the government has been about finding trading partners other than the US. That is why the government is negotiating trade agreements with the EC and India, and why the ability to send our resources to regions other than the US is important.

    • In terms of who gets to buy product, yes. In terms of spreading job creation across a wider number of industries, no. More trading partners [good], but same old, same old…

    • In the same way sending raw logs south does.

  5. Environmentalists aren’t the only numpties who are keen to make wealth creation in Canada as difficult as possible. 

    NatPost: 

    “This week, the Conservative government in Ottawa nixed a $39-billion takeover bid for Potash Corp by Australia-based BHP Billiton. Industry Minister Tony Clement broke his rhythm as he read a prepared statement in the foyer of the House of Commons, opening with his “Canada’s open for business” preamble before taking a deep breath and delivering his verdict against foreign investment.”

  6. as someone who has written politically, this was a statement that was carefully crafted so that they could paint things in the most extreme way, making it seem like anyone/everyone who opposes their plans to oppose jobs, dams, mining etc. There are likely one or two groups that do oppose these things, but the vast majority who express concern or ask for an environmental assessment etc are far from the way this comment was designed to depict them.

    When you have to attack people rather presenting evidence and saying ‘see, look’, you probably don’t have that strong a case.

    “The man who strikes first admits that his ideas have given out.” Chinese Proverb

    • The thing is, their carefully crafted statements assume that Canadians are stupid. This is going to backfire on them bigtime.

      • This comment was deleted.

        • Yeah that describes those indians who are the principle objectors to a tee…don’t it just.

  7. Pipeline might be superfluous, all the action is happening in shale gas and world’s geopolitics around oil will soon be drastically altered. Governments act as brake on human progress and wealth creation, they don’t help, because bureaucracies are barnacles/parasites. 

    “ Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth. No forestry. No mining. No oil. No gas. No more hydro-electric dams.”

    Virginia Postrel ~ The One Best Way: 

    The characteristic values of reactionaries are continuity, rootedness, and geographically defined community. They are generally anticosmopolitan, antitechnology, anticommercial, antispecialization, and antimobility. They draw on a powerful romantic tradition that gives their politics a poetic, emotional appeal, especially to people with literary sensibilities. With some exceptions, they oppose not only the future but the present and the recent past, the industrial as well as the postindustrial era. 

    The reactionary vision is one of peasant virtues, of the imagined harmonies and, above all, the imagined predictability of traditional life. It idealizes life without movement: In the reactionary ideal, people know and keep their places, geographically as well as socially, and tradition is undisturbed by ambition or invention.

    Although they represent a minority position, reactionary ideas have tremendous cultural vitality. Reactionaries speak directly to the most salient aspects of contemporary life: technological change, commercial fluidity, biological transformation, changing social roles, cultural mixing, international trade, and instant communication. 

    They see these changes as critically important, and, as the old National Review motto had it, they are determined to “stand athwart history, yelling, ‘Stop!’” Merely by acknowledging the dynamism of contemporary life, reactionaries win points for insight. And in the eyes of more conventional thinkers, denouncing change makes them seem wise.

    • The reactionary here is Oliver.  The idea that making money without  regard to anything else is very old.

  8. I can’t imagine Enbridge appreciates this.  They bill themselves as being sustainable and that the Gateway project will not harm the environment.  Attacking those that due care about the environment like this is an outdated strategy that isn’t helpful.  The forest industry learned this lesson 20 years ago. 

    • This comment was deleted.

      • Yup, wanting to clean things up doesn’t mean ‘cleaning things up’, it means shutting down the tar sands completely, and putting you personally, out of a job.

        Speak English much?

      • Oliver was just asked if he could name an environmental group that wanted to shut down basically everything, he couldn’t.  Can you?

        • Oliver sounded oblivious when he was forced to respond to Carol’s questions about naming the groups, their nationality, their numbers, financing, the motives of American Oil industry money and their effect on Canadian domestic policy, etc. I’m really surprised that Steve let him off  the leash.

          • I always thought there couldn’t be a worse Minister of Natural Resources than Gary Lunn.  Harper has managed that and then some. 

  9. My neighbor belongs to an organization that is demanding a place at the table during discussions concerning the building of the Northern Gateway Pipeline. He tells me his group is called PTBBWDNGPFHIW  ( people who live in three bedroom bungalows who depend on natural gas pipelines for heat in the wintertime.)

    He says his group really does not have any factual information about the environment—they know nothing about western Canadian geography, or oil extraction, or the marketability of Canadian oil on the world market, or about the dependence of the Canadian economy to finance health care from the profits from sale of natural resources.
     
    But he says his group had a really exhilarating blogfest just last month and they adopted a motion that would ensure that if it takes 5 years to build the Pipeline then it should take 25 years to talk about building it.

    I think my neighbor is a sarcastic dude.
    I`m considering joining his team.

    • B.C. plays host to people from all over the world who appreciate our pristine coastline.  And you know what – we make a lot of money from them. 

      • Then, unless you are so pristinely selfish as to think only BC should have a coastline free of industry, these people from all over the world will have to paddle in their tiny boats to visit your pristine coastline.

        •  Because there are two choices – every inch of the world’s coastline must be subjected to industrialization and it’s risks, or none of it.

          • I would like to think that we live in an enlightened society that believes in social justice for all the people on the planet.

            I am constantly disappointed with the selfish, NIMBY, Left who demand that their public sector jobs provide them with above average salary, unlimited benefits, and indexed pensions at 55 while expecting the rest of the world should provide them with the fuels to continue their pristine lifestyle.

          • Find a better alternative fuel.

            Basic capitalism.

          •  Nah.   I’d just like to remain self-employed on the coast where I’ve spent my life, and be left to decide what happens here along with my neighbours.  And I’d be more than happy if the rest of the world was free to do the same.
            Careful with that big pile of straw – it looks flammable.

          • You do a mean imitation of Joe Oliver, gotta say.

          • You see the pipeline as a human rights issue?  Now that is some fancy spinning. 

        • This is my neck of the woods, I am fighting for it.  I grew up going out on the water and catching fish, I hope for the same thing for my grandchildren.  If you’re willing to sell out I hope at least your holding out for big bucks. 

          • Kitimat and Prince Rupert are, of course, already industrial bases and large ships routinely sail from both ports, without incident. A signficant natural gas pipeline has already been approved for construction to Kitimat, along with the associated LNG facilities.  The addition of a parallel oil pipeline will not significantly change the habitat around Kitimat, and the additon of an extra sailing of a large commercial ship every day or so from and to Kitimat, in addition to the existing and approved traffic, will not significantly affect anyone’s fishing or lifestyle.  Everyone agrees that oil transport has to be done as safely as possible, but the existing commercial ship traffice shows it can be done without harming  the evironment of affecting the local economy, other than making it better.

          •  ” large ships routinely sail from both ports, without incident. ”

            Indeed, the Queen of the North routinely sailed from Prince Rupert without incident….until it didn’t.
            Unfortunately, it’s not the ships that sail without incident that people are concerned about.

          • Everyone realizes there are risks in having oil tankers sail from Kitimat, just as there are risks in having them sail from Vancouver, as they have for decades.  Those risks can be controlled by appropriate procedures.  The proposed rules for all tankers to be escorted by two tugs, in daylight, with local pilots and enhanced radar navigation aids would remove virtually any chance of an accident like the Queen of the North.

          • Indeed there are risks.   Risks that aren’t acceptable to most people living on the coast.  

          • If the traffic in large bulk and container carriers, and large LNG carriers, in the same waters, can be managed acceptably, there is no reason that large oil tankers can’t also sail the same waters with reasonably managed risks.  The most likely event, in any of those cases, is a grounding that releases the ships bunke fuel. The effects of such a spill from an LNG tanker would be no less than from an oil tanker. If one is acceptable, the other should be as well.  In fact, given the steps that will be taken to protect the ships, the risk is miniscule and far outweighed by the benefits to Canada of having the ability to export our products to the Pacific rim.

          • “The proposed rules for all tankers to be escorted by two tugs, in daylight, with local pilots and enhanced radar navigation aids would remove virtually any chance of an accident like the Queen of the North.”

            There speaks a man who knows nothing of the north and cental BC coasts, knows nothing about the the prevailing weather, the topography and the fact that there are proposed sailings of upwards of 200 tankers a day – including winter travel out through the Douglas channel and into the hecate strait, which is a wicked place, particularly in the winter. Much of the route puts the mainland and later the Charlottes on a lee shore…look it up, that’s bad, real bad.
            The risks for oil tanker traffic in that area are unacceptable to the local people who still depend on the sea for their livelihood. It isn’t going to happen, believe me. The Haisla have balanced and accepted the trade off of the LNG tanker[ i don't believe there will be 200+ a year, but i don't know] for jobs and investment in the community – but that’s it.
            The govt would be better off to concentrate on Vancouver or possibly Pr where faciliies exist to deal with at least local disasters. They wont, cuz their stupid. They’d rather butt heads. They’re going to lose. 

          • It is not a government project, but a commercial one sponsored by Enbridge. Presumably there are reasons why it is more advantageous to go through Kitimat than Ruper. As I said, the same risks that affect the LNG tankers apply to the proposed oil tankers. It is a challenging environment, but one that can easily be managed by current technology.  Bulk carriers and container ships from Rupert seem to manage fine, as does the existing shipping from Kitimat. When was the last time a freighter sank in Douglas Channel?  Oil is being shipped from Vancouver, without incident, as it has been from Cherry Point in Washington, for decades. There are risks, which have to be managed, but it is foolish to simply rule out the pacific rim as a market for our resources.  The Haisla do not have a veto on development.

          • As i said you need to do a bit more research before you opine. The winter storms on that stretch of the coast come in at  around a 3 to 4 day interval [ so i would agree that summer sailings are fairly risk free] and 100 -150k winds are not uncommon. Yes ships have gone down – the Qeen of the north went down just around the corner from the entrance to DC, and they had numerous safety redundancies – shit happens up there all the time. I’ve spoken to ships captains of VLV, they are not invulnerable at all if they get into trouble. 
            Look my principle objection is that the area is too wild and remote for such a venture, too hard to clean up and in any case is a priceless jewel which will be bringing in tourist $ long after fort Mac is a ghost town.
             As for the Haisla – if they say no, it wont happen. Don’t believe me. See what happened in QC’s when the tried to push oil exploration. The Haida said no and they meant it, it hasn’t happened.This is their backyard, their homeland. If they aren’t onside it wont happen.  
             Comparisons to Vancouver and to some extent PR are invalid. In neither port do you have to navigate any portion of the inside passage, you can head out to sea, although Rupert is still really bad in wintertime but preferable to Kitimat. Both places offer more chance of clean up getting on the scene in time.

          • The Haisla have a right to be consulted. They do not have a veto.  The Queen of the North illustrates what can happen if risks are taken for granted. In that case the ship was travelling at night, without tug escorts and without a pilot on the bridge. In fact, there appears to have been no one on the bridge. That is hardly an occurrence that will happen again.
            Yes, there are fierce storms on the north coast. I’ve been there. But freighters and ferries routinely sail without incident.  It is wild, but Kitimat is already an industrial town and the LNG port will simply confirm that. The addition of oil tankers adds some additional traffic, but it won’t change the character of the region. One additional sailing every day and a half is not going to make it the nautical equivalent of the 401.

          • That’s the second or third factually incorrect post now.

            The Haisla like most of the BC FN’s have never signed treaty so their rights remain intact – they can pretty well do what they like.

            Bc ferries routinely travel at night – yet it happened; are you claiming tankers will only travel in daylight? There were indeed two people on the bridge. It was ruled human error, they even switched off and ignored warning lights…it can happen again.

            You’re missing the point. It’s what ‘s in the tankers that’s the problem and i believe they are going to be a lot bigger then anything previously sailing in the area.

            One additional sailing every day and a half is a huge traffic increase and a considerable increase in likellihood of an accident or major spill.

          • The Haisla have the same rights as any other First Nations people in BC on these issues. The right to be consulted, not the right to a veto. Unless the law changes, that’s the way it is.  They have agreed to LNG tankers in their neighgborhood. I am confident that if the oil tanker traffic is handled to the standards proposed they will eventually realize it poses no greater risk than the other commercial traffic in their region and they will accept the proposal.  The opportunity to export resources to Asia is an enormous one for Canada. There are risks, of course, but they are manageable.

          • I will take my facts from Mike Redmond any day before the hysterical fantasy rants of a keyboard puncher like kcm2.

            200 tankers a day spilling their oil of the coast of B.C.—thousands of acres of boreal forests uprooted by a 48 inch diameter pipeline, entire Native communities displaced—-this is the type of hysterical rants one will hear from lib-sups like kcm and his ilk.

            Here`s a little test kcm and others can give themselves to determine if their motivation is sincere or partisan-based.—Go back through your memory bank and tell us how many letters you wrote to protest to the federal Liberal government when they were promoting the expansion of the oil and pipeline business in western Canada when they were in power. Probably none.

            Your hypocrisy and lack of principles will ensure you good standing in the last days of the Liberal Party.

          • Google David Anderson, former Liberal MP from Victoria and off shore drilling. And ask Mike Redmond if he has any history with the Con party before you accuse others of being partisan.

          •  ” there is no reason that large oil tankers can’t also sail the same waters with reasonably managed risks.”

            That’s what you don’t get – I don’t agree that the risk of a catastrophic oil spill for the reward of a handful of jobs is reasonable.

          •  ”200 tankers a day spilling their oil of the coast of B.C”

            No need to fantasize – one would be catastrophic.

            “Go back through your memory bank and tell us how many letters you wrote
            to protest to the federal Liberal government when they were promoting
            the expansion of the oil and pipeline business in western Canada when
            they were in power. Probably none.”

            Correct.  I wrote no letters to protest the Liberals moratorium on oil tanker traffic in the inside passage.

          • Fuel oil tankers routinely roll into hundreds of harbours on the East coast of North America every week—-where have your letters been opposing these actions.
            Yeah, that`s right— you are a nimby

          • Calvin

            “200 tankers a day spilling their oil of the coast of B.C.—thousands of acres of boreal forests uprooted by a 48 inch diameter pipeline, entire Native communities displaced—-this is the type of hysterical rants one will hear from lib-sups like kcm and his ilk”

            Nowhere have i claimed any such thing. You’re a moron ideally suited to your role as a Harper apologist, making shit up and maligning those who’s fact you are unable to refute – at least mike Redmond is giving it an honest try.

          • You have no facts.
            You have opinions—-most of which I believe are wrong—you have a mistakenly inflated view of yourself if you think any of your views are facts.

            I`ll admit to being a partisan, but I`m not a hypocrite. When the Gov`t Liberals supported private enterprise in sound industrial concepts, I may not have wildly supported them but I did not attempt to obstruct them the way partisan lib hypocrites are doing now.

            As for your moron crack—I have no idea if you are one nor do I care, but the more you post then the easier it will be to label you.

          •  Absolutely.   I concerned about my own back yard – not yours.

      • How do they get up there to appreciate it?

        • Same way people get to the Calgary Stampede and Banff.

        •  Because using any amount of fossil fuels means you must support complete and unfettered fossil fuel use and development.

          • nimby

          • Of course.   But if you want to let the dog shit all over your back yard I say go right ahead – it’s your backyard!  I don’t even care what kind of curtains you hang. 

  10. Bad billionaire socialists! Baaaad! Baaaah Baaa Baaa….

    • Nothing worse than a ‘socialist’ who has figured out how to work the markets.

  11. “For example, the Mackenzie Valley Gas Pipeline review took more than nine years to complete. In comparison, the western expansion of the nation-building Canadian Pacific Railway under Sir John A. Macdonald took four years. Under our current system, building a temporary ice arena on a frozen pond in Banff required the approval of the federal government. This delayed a decision by two months. Two valuable months to assess something that thousands of Canadians have been doing for over a century. ”

    I know this is just politics, but just how stupid does Oliver think the public is…making an invidious comparisan between a modern comprehensive review of a piplline that had 25 years earlier received a resounding no from FNs and a 19th century nation building exercise carried out by a PM not known for his tolerance of any opposition – legit or otherwise – topped off by reference to what looks like a local decision snafu, but is in fact within a national park and therefor the express responsibility of the federal govt , is an exercise in cheap, logically absurd, mischievous myth making bunkum. At least i hope so. Surely he can’t believe all that conflational BS, can he?

    • Mr. Oliver and his 161 fellows have gone to great pains to ascertain EXACTLY how stupid 39% of the public is. 

  12. Oliver owes Canadians an apology. Protecting our environment is a Canadian value.

    • Absolutely!

    • “Protecting our environment is a Canadian value.”

      And what a fine job we have done of it! 

      “Following collapse of the Canadian cod stock in the early 1990s, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) issued a ban on Northern cod fishing in 1992, which caused great economic hardship in the eastern coastal Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador.”

      • So because the govt screwed up in the past when we didn’t know what they were doing, we should let them screw up again in the present when we DO know what they’re doing?

      • An odd analogy… are you suggesting that rather than imposing the fishing ban, we should have allowed the industry to deplete the cod stocks to the point of extinction?

        • I am suggesting DFO managed the fisheries into the ground. Bureaucrats = incompetent. 

          Greenpeace ~ Canadian Atlantic Fisheries Collapse 

          Contradictory to scientific data, traditional inshore fishermen in Newfoundland began to notice declining catches before the mid-1980s. By 1986 the scientists also realized that the stock was declining, and by 1988 had recommended the total allowable catch be cut in half. Instead of acting immediately, in a precautionary manner to protect dwindling fish stocks by substantially reducing catch quotas at the first signs of overfishing, the federal government delayed conservation action, choosing instead quite moderate reductions of the total allowable catch beginning in 1989

          Wiki ~ Cod Fisheries:

          The ban on Canadian cod fishing was partly lifted in 1997 by the Minister for DFO just ten days prior to a federal election, despite that independent Canadian scientists and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea doubted there had been sufficient recovery.

          • As always, rich that in the same threat you
            a) bash environmentalists; and
            b) quote environmentalists to support your opinions.

          • Facts are facts, does it matter what source I use? 

            Walt Whitman ~ Song Of Myself: 

            Do I contradict myself? 
            Very well then I contradict myself, 
            (I am large, I contain multitudes.)

      • Now look up “Walkerton” and what Conservatives brought about there. Then try “listeria” and Ritz”.

        • Walkerton was caused by 2 incompetent municipal employees—-they may have voted Conservative but probably Liberal.

          • Yes, the incompetent employees, were directly responsible for Walkerton.  But the policies of the Harris gov’t were indirectly responsible & were it not for those policies, the incompetence of those 2 employees may have been discovered sooner & this tragedy might have been averted or considerably less deadly.

          • Well I guess if you are going to play the  ” paranoid, may have, might have “  game I suppose you could blame the provincial gov`t workers who may have overlooked the negligence because they opposed the Harris gov`t cutbacks in their dep`t.

          • You guess wrong.   Kay53 is referring to  the findings of the public inquiry into the tragedy.

  13. http://www.terracedaily.ca/show9198a/NO_APOLOGY_FORTHCOMING

    Here’s a great local website if you want to hear it straight from the “chiefs”mouth. Notice how the Haisla did not oppose LNG tanker and a pipe line into their territory[ Kitimat]. They need the jobs like hell, for them to oppose this pipeline is a matter of real principle and a major economic sacrifice.
    Also interesting given the Attawapiskat story presently gripping the news, is the threat[ presumably from a liberal led INAC] to impose third party intervention on his band merely because they were fighting to save a river. This is the kind of crap FNs have been dealing with forever from our govts and bureaucazy.

    •  Yabbut, they allowed some sorts of pipelines and tankers so they have to allow all of them.
      Also, they drive cars and stuff so even if Enbridge wanted to fill their living rooms with oil they’d have to say yes.

      • They also watch big screen tvs, own 4x4s and like to drive fast boats. How could they just up and bite the hand that feeds them? 

  14. Happily we are building bigger and better jails to hold these evil interlopers
    who are prolly funded by unethical Iranian oil mullahs. Did I miss anything ?

    • Arthur D. Hlavaty ~ Paranoia is the delusion that your enemies are organized

      • Damn. I was hoping for something from Thomas Sowell.

    • I think including Obama in this would have been a nice touch.  He is after all to blame for everything currently wrong in the world.

  15. All is takes is one of those huge tankers to cause a spill.  And the same people pushing this are the ones who will want the government to go easy on the safety rules. 

    • Triple-hulled tankers with sober captains are just too danged expensive!

  16. As i said you need to do a bit more research before you opine. The winter storms on that stretch of the coast come in at  around a 3 to 4 day interval [ so i would agree that summer sailings are fairly risk free] and 100 -150k winds are not uncommon. Yes ships have gone down – the Qeen of the north went down just around the corner from the entrance to DC, and they had numerous safety redundancies – shit happens up there all the time. I’ve spoken to ships captains of VLV, they are not invulnerable at all.
    Lookm my principle objection ishead out pretty well to sea, although in PR you have to still cross hecate straight and the whole coast is a lee shore. As for the Haisla – if they say no, it wont happen. Don’t believe me. See what happened in QC’s when the tried to push oil exploration. The Haida said not and they meatourist destination and intrinsic value as a truly wild preserve  outweigh commercial interests ino and a lot of other BCers.  
     Comparisons to Vancouver and to some extent PR are invalid. In neither port do you have to navigate any portion of the inside passage – you can nt it.
    This is their backyard, their homeland. If they aren’t onside it wont happen. that he area makes the risk factor and the difficulty of clean up exponentially worse then say via Vancouver – i lived there, i know the area. Besides its value as a  

Sign in to comment.