Being the king has its privileges.

In Calgary, we have had a ring road in the works/design for decades.  The southwest portion even has land set aside for the road.  My brother in law purchased a house maybe 25 years ago that backs onto that land.  He has a beautiful view and got a great deal on his place – knowing that a road was to follow.

But then he and some others began a fight against the road. Not because he would lose the view, but he wanted to save the owls – the road would be damaging to environmentally sensitive areas. Blah, blah, blah.

But really it was only about his view and the sound of a road behind his house and his property values.

So fight, fight, fight and we still have no road.  The road now will cost many millions more when we get it.  And Calgarians have spent millions of hours and litres of fuel idling on the couple congested roads we do have because of these clowns.

There are huge yellow natural gas pipelines crisscrossing this country and you don’t even see them.

We have the technology to run a pipeline to the coast without disturbing one streambed.  Most of it would probably follow the rail line.

Many of the opponents will actually want the pipeline – they will just want more compensation.

Instead of fighting fossil fuels, which costs both sides more money. Both sides should agree to spend that money on alternatives to fossil fuels, or ways to economise on their use.

Harper made it clear with Kairos that he is not going to fund charities that use the money for whining instead of doing.

I think we should only be sending refined oil out of province. If anybody can find a cleaner way of refining oil – we can.

Refineries are very expensive to build.  And marginally productive to run.

I am not terribly happy about the environmental consequences of burning fossil fuels but people do not seem to realize that there is no alternative at the moment. 

For example, wind and solar can be used to generate electricity.  This mean actually shutting down plants burning coal.  (To be correct, wind and solar cannot provide 100% of a country's power because they cannot be relied upon on a steady basis.  But they can still provide a good chunk of it.).

But there is no alternative to fossil fuels for running cars, planes, trucks, ships.   Ethanol can be used up to a point, but it takes a tremendous amount of land to grow corn for ethanol (half of the huge US corn crop goes to ethanol).  Plus, the energy used to distill ethanol must be taken into consideration--it is greater than the energy you get from the ethanol itself.

Ethanol from sugar cane is a better deal.  But it still takes a lot of land.  This works well in Brazil, since they have plenty of land and the hot climate necessary for sugar cane.

Electric cars are just now coming on stream.  They will require a huge infrastructure of charging stations first.  And somehow, energy to charge them,

We need to stop building cities the way we do.  That is to say, suburbs full of houses where you need a car to go anywhere.  But they can hardly knock all the existing houses down and rebuild!  But there should be a change.  I am seeing to some extent where I am (a suburb of Victoria).  They are putting condo's above shops, for example.  They never used to do that.  (Although long ago they did).

Still, for single family houses, the suburbs model still seems to be in place in my area. 

The "king" has privileges? NOT in a democracy.

The whining I've been hearing is from Harper: his little clique snivels whenever it's asked to show a little accountability and responsibility. Its energy polcies amount to environmental and social vandalism to please oil magnates... it has nothing to do with the economic security of ordinary Canadian families. Ordinary Canadian families will find out how damaging these big environmentally-dustructive petrochemical schemes are as other sectors become less and less sustainable thanks to climate change, environmental degradation on land and deterioration of oceanic life-suport systems.

The Northern Gateway is NOT about a road or sleepless owls... it is about very large ecosystems and log-term sustainability Vs short=term profit for a few: it's essentially a form of asset-stripping.

Yes - in a democracy.  The conservatives get to carry the ball, then you can do as you see fit after the fourth quarter.

Putting a pipline in now is not much different that putting underground sprinklers on your lawn.  You can't even tell it's there afer a few weeks.

Until there's a rupture in the line and a devastating oil spill.

Possible, but not likely.  Pipelines are probably safer by magnitudes than truck or rail.  Are they going to try to make it illegal to transport oil by any means?

Possible, but not likely.

Strong point. That's why I've never worried about nuclear energy or oil drilling in the Caribbean. Or cancer downstream from oilsands.

I mean, after a while, you just forget it's all there.

Pipelines have valves every so far. they measure how much goes in one end and the same amount has to come out the other end. If it does not, you have a leak and you have an idea where it is. They also run pigs down the pipeline that assess it's condition.  Crude oil is not very toxic, you just don't want birds swimming in it.  We also now have very cool cleanup stuff. Certainly not a comparable crisis to nuclear meltdown.

And not just a few oil magnates profit from oil produced in Alberta, but every Canadian.  But if you feel so strongly about it you should tell your government you no longer want to profit from dirty oil and you will find another way to fund your social programs.

damn little of the profit ends up in the pockets of ordinary Canadians. In fact, in many cases corporations take out for more than they put in with their taxes and paycheques. That's a major reason we're having the economic crisis that you may have heard of.

Social programmes are the least of our costs. Our greater costs are subisides, tax breaks, cheap energy supply for corporations....

Look at the US. It has followed the model you seem to admire. And, according to the US census bureau, one half of all americans are now officially poor.

But taxes on the rich remain low, and profits rise. Save thing happened in the 1930s. (Contrary to myth, large corporations did not suffer.)

But it is also true that the oil sands are one of the buffers between what's happened to the U.S. economy and what could happen to ours.

Recommended reading ....

An Open Reply to Joe Oliver's Propaganda for the Petro State

From Wikipedia - Enbridge

Spills and violations

Using data from Enbridge's own reports, the Polaris Institute calculated that 804 spills occurred on Enbridge pipelines between 1999 and 2010. These spills released approximately 168,645 barrels (26,812.4 m3) of hydrocarbons into the environment.[8]

On July 4, 2002 an Enbridge pipeline ruptured in a marsh near the town of Cohasset, Minnesota in Itasca County, spilling 6,000 barrels (950 m3) of crude oil. In an attempt to keep the oil from contaminating the Mississippi River, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources set a controlled burn that lasted for 1 day and created a smoke plume about 1-mile (1.6 km) high and 5 miles (8.0 km) long.[9]

In 2006, there were 67 reportable spills totaling 5,663 barrels (900.3 m3) on Enbridge's energy and transportation and distribution system; in 2007, there were 65 reportable spills totaling 13,777 barrels (2,190.4 m3) [10]

On March 18, 2006, approximately 613 barrels (97.5 m3) of crude oil were released when a pump failed at Enbridge's Willmar terminal in Saskatchewan.[11] According to Enbridge, roughly half the oil was recovered, the remainder contributing to 'off-site' impacts.

On January 1, 2007 an Enbridge pipeline that runs from Superior, Wisconsin to near Whitewater, Wisconsin cracked open and spilled ~50,000 US gallons (190 m3) of crude oil onto farmland and into a drainage ditch.[12] The same pipeline was struck by construction crews on February 2, 2007, in Rusk County, Wisconsin, spilling ~126,000 US gallons (480 m3) of crude. Some of the oil filled a hole more than 20 feet (6.1 m) deep and was reported to have contaminated the local water table.[13]

In April 2007, roughly 6,227 barrels (990.0 m3) of crude oil spilled into a field downstream of an Enbridge pumping station near Glenavon, Saskatchewan. Long-term site remediation is being attempted to bring the site to "as close as possible to its original condition".[11]

In 2009, Enbridge Energy Partners, a US affiliate of Enbridge Inc., agreed to pay $1.1 million to settle a lawsuit brought against the company by the state of Wisconsin for 545 environmental violations.[14] In a news release from Wisconsin's Department of Justice, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said "...the incidents of violation were numerous and widespread, and resulted in impacts to the streams and wetlands throughout the various watersheds."[15] The violations were incurred while building portions of the company's Southern Access pipeline, a ~$2.1 billion project to transport crude from the oil sands region in Alberta to Chicago.

In January 2009 an Enbridge pipeline leaked about 4,000 barrels (640 m3) of oil southeast of Fort McMurray at the company's Cheecham Terminal tank farm. It was reported in the Edmonton Journal that most of the spilled oil was contained within berms, but that about 1% of the oil, about 40 barrels (6.4 m3), sprayed into the air and coated nearby snow and trees.[16]

April 2010 an Enbridge pipeline ruptured spilling more than 1500 litres of oil in Virden, Manitoba, which leaked into the Boghill Creek which eventually connects to the Assiniboine River.[17]

July 2010, a leaking pipeline spilled an estimated 843,444 US gallons (3,192.78 m3) of crude oil into Talmadge Creek leading to the Kalamazoo River in southwest Michigan on Monday, July 26.[18][19]

On September 9, 2010, a rupture on Enbridge's Line 6A pipeline near Romeoville, Illinois released an estimate 6,100 barrels (970 m3) of oil into the surrounding area.[18][20]

***************************************

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
          Aldous Huxley, Complete Essays 2, 1926-29

You are funny Graeme. This is the internet. Why don't you check out how far you live from reality?

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2010/figure4.pdf

Published on Wednesday, January 11, 2012 by The Star

by Thomas Walkom

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/11-5

1022000000 = number of bbl delivered by pipeline 2006-2007

19440 = number of bbl spilled during same period

After recovery, the amount of oil lost would be much smaller.

The 2010 spill was about 19000 bbl as well.

News Flash:

There is not going to be a pipeline to the West Coast.  All this publicity is all designed to get Americans to move on approval of getting our oil and not China.

Smoke and mirrors.

An open letter to my fellow Canadians

Hello friends,

We are under attack. By our own government, flanked by the oil industry. I don't know how else to describe it.

The logic of the Harper government -- and the "ethical oil" lobbyists our prime minister himself is parroting -- is so twisted, their arguments so convoluted, it makes the head spin. I am a writer, and words are failing me.

Let me try to explain.

Like so many other Canadian families, my parents were born elsewhere and moved to Canada at a young age. I was born here on the West Coast, and grew up under the canopy of ancient cedar trees. As a child I explored tide pools, climbed trees and mountains. To know a place well you've got to get your hands dirty, get it under your nails. This coast is my home, I know it well.

I grew up watching forests on Vancouver Island be clear-cut, mountains seemingly shaved from top to bottom. I wondered where the animals would go. I grew up at rallies and on picket-lines in Vancouver, with women and workers struggling for their rights. I learnt that you don't always win, but that speaking out can make a difference, and there is power in numbers.

And I've been speaking out, ever since I was 14 years old, for the kind of future I want to live in. A future that is more equitable, with ancient trees and wild spaces, where we treat each other and the land with respect and humility. I'm now 35. Harper twisted logic No.1 is that somehow foreign funding is telling me what to think and say. Sure, my activism has been shaped by people and cultures from around the world: my German refugee grandfather and independent British grandmother, my American grandparents who moved their family north to avoid a war, indigenous communities I've worked with in Mexico, an Ecuadorian agroforestry technician, a Kenyan sweatshop organizer, and so many more. I am frequently inspired by the writings and actions of courageous people around the world. But no source of funding -- Canadian or other -- is going to dictate what I say or do. Ask anyone who knows me; I've never been shy to share my opinion or to speak up for what I believe in.

Harper twisted logic No. 2 is that while foreign funding of environmental organizations is a bad thing, foreign investment in the Enbridge pipeline and in the Alberta tar sands is unequivocally a good thing. Oh of course, the international scientists are wrong and climate change isn't really a problem, so we can proceed full-steam ahead with expansion of the tar sands, Canada's number one emitter of greenhouse gas emissions. Never mind all the refugees around the world forced to leave their homes due to rising sea level. Never mind the wacky weather, beetle infestations, and predictions of water so warm by 2080 that salmon may not be able to survive on the B.C. coast. Never mind that climate change is a global issue, requiring a global response, and that Canada is the black sheep on the world stage for all we have done to block international climate action. Never mind that First Nations people downstream from the tar sands are dying of rare cancers in shocking numbers. The twisted logic states that foreign investment in the tar sands is most definitely a good thing, especially when most of the benefits accrue to the international investors, not Canadians. The bafflegab leaves me tongue-tied; the complete disregard for science is astounding, the lack of compassion appalling.

Harper twisted logic No. 3 is that we need to build the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline across northern B.C. in order to ship tankers full of crude oil to Asia, so that we are no longer reliant on selling to the U.S. When in fact, many of the tankers are destined for California. An inconvenient truth, so the spin-doctors instead repeat the mantra "we need new markets" over and over again.

And then there's this little problem of the over 4,500 people who have signed up to speak at the federal review process set up to assess the proposed Enbridge pipeline and tankers. Harper twisted logic No. 4 is that it's not possible for this many people to think for themselves and have an opinion on this project. Their solution is to streamline the review process so that not as many Canadians can voice their concerns. This is paternalistic, and undemocratic.

And speaking of paternalistic, Harper twisted logic No. 5 is that First Nations don't know what's good for them. Over 130 First Nations have declared their unwavering opposition to the proposed pipeline and tankers -- a declaration based in their ancestral laws, not to mention their constitutionally protected rights as Aboriginal peoples to determine what happens on their lands and waters. If only, say Harper's cronies, if only they could understand the benefits that would come from this project... If only they could understand that a few dollars a year is better than the taste of smoked wild salmon, better than clean drinking water, better than livelihoods in fishing and ecotourism, better than any future they might choose for themselves... This attitude reeks of racism and brings to mind our shameful history of residential schools, of banning the potlatch, of not allowing First Nations to vote or to hire lawyers, of confining First Nations to small parcels of land without signing treaties or offering compensation for the land taken away. Our history is appalling, when you look into it. And all of us who are settlers to this land have benefited in some way from the oppression of First Nations. It's time we found ways to reconcile, to apologize, to make whatever changes are required in our own lives so that First Nations can be the governments they rightfully are. Step one is to respect and recognize the decisions that have already been made by First Nations regarding the Enbridge pipeline. They are clear: they choose wild salmon, not the risk of oil spills.

Harper twisted logic No. 6 is that he represents the interests of Canadians. But these days, Canada is a petro-state. Where the logic of the Harper government gets untwisted is this -- if it is good for the oil industry, if it is good for the tar sands, we'll do it. If it means further stomping on First Nation rights, well we've been doing that since we first colonized Canada, so why stop now? If it means damaging ecosystems, causing cancer and other environmentally-related health impacts, polluting rivers, and leading to global warming, well we've been doing that for a long time also so why stop now? If it means pushing aside the opinions of rural communities and urban activists, well that isn't new either.

So here's what I think. It's time to stand together. Canadian values as we know them are under attack. Wherever we land on the spectrum that is Canada, whatever our politics, whatever our job, we share some common values. We want a say in what happens to our homes and our communities, and to the spaces where our children play. We want food that tastes good and that we can afford. We want work that feels meaningful, that we can feel good about at the end of the day. We want to feel safe, and know that our children will have opportunities.

First Nations and non-Aboriginal communities in northern B.C. are facing the loss of these most basic values. Wherever you live in Canada, I invite you to lend your voice, your strength, your ideas, and your solidarity. The current target of big oil and of the Harper government is B.C., but don't be fooled, it won't stop here. The greed is insatiable, the logic is twisted, and a pipeline may well be coming your way next. It might be you, trying to sleep at night with the risk of a catastrophic oil spill ever present outside your door, threatening to destroy your community and way of life. And it will be all of us, wherever we live, who will be impacted by the increased global warming if the Enbridge pipeline gets built.

What it comes down to is this. Do you love the land like I do? Will you stand with me to protect it? I will stand with you, when your home is under threat.

Caitlyn Vernon

Sierra Club B.C.

Oil and gas industry's safety and environmental record leaves much room for improvement
The Barrel, 2010

[...]

Industry argues that it produces billions of barrels of gasoline a year and refines billions of barrels of gasoline safely, with few major accidents.

However, less than major events presumably include 1,443 incidents in OCS waters  from 2001-2007 that killed 41 and injured 301 injuries, 100 losses of well control, 11 collisions, 476 fires and 356 pollution events. In most  cases accidents and oil spills "can be traced to human error and/or organizational failures." according to the Minerals Management Service (now the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement).

Ironically, the MMS published its conclusions in a proposed 2009 rule to develop and  implement a Safety and Environmental Management System addressing oil and gas operations. The rule never advanced in the face of strong opposition from the oil and gas industry.

According to state-by-state reports compiled by the US Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials and Pipeline Safety Administration, from 2000 to 2009 pipeline accidents accounted for 2,554 significant incidents and 161 fatalities in the US.

In June, Jordan Barab, deputy assistant secretary for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, testified to a US Senate subcommittee about the results of an OSHA program to inspect the process safety management programs of the nation's oil refineries.

The results "are deeply troubling," Barab said. "Not only are we finding a significant lack of compliance during our  inspections, but time and time again, our inspectors are finding the same violations in multiple refineries, including those with common ownership and sometimes even in different untits in the same refinery. This is a clear indication that essential safety lessons are not being communicated within the industry, and often not even within a single corporation or facility."

[...]

The NWF chronicle continues its litany of spills, explosions,and fires through mid-2010, a year capped by BP's estimated 4.9 million barrel spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Accidents happen, of course, and no major industrial operation is risk nor accident free. But to the extent that many of the accidents cited in the NWF report could have been prevented if individual companies took better care of business and exercised due diligence, industry's touting of its safety and environmental performance rings a little hollow.

*******************************************

Tell me, tell me
Whatcha gonna do when your well runs dry?
Whatcha gonna do when your well runs dry?
Whatcha gonna do when your well runs dry?
I'd like to know

     Peter Tosh, Till Your Well Runs Dry
 

Saul - way b ack. You're right. My figure on American poverty was too high. (I was thinking in absolute numbers - almost 50 million) rather than percentages.

You were 1. out of date. You used used the 2010 figure. It is now 2012, and the rate has risen.

2. As in counting unemployment, there are all kinds of cute tricks in making the humber of poor lower than it really is. If officially unemployment, for example, is listed at ten percent, it's a safe bet it's closer to double that. Similarly, those getting food stamps may not be counted as poor. (because they're eating.)

However one counts, the fact remains that the systems you advocate are crashing all over the world. Pollution from the oil sands is a serious and deadly matter. Reliance on fossil fuels is also poisoning the whole earth. It doesn't matter who burns our oil. the result is going to be the same.

We are (sort of) keeping this generation in  comfort at the cost of terrible conditions for the next generation.

Maybe, as you say, there is no alternative. If so, let's get real and face the fact that we are all committing suicide.

And please don't tell us that science will find a solution. The money that science needs to do the research is supplied largely by those who make money out of fossil fuels. There is not great profit for them in discovering renewable energy.

Where I live in Ontario the cost of heating with oil is about $1.10 per litre. So I just switched to natural gas which is dirt cheap compared to oil at least that is what I am told by those who heat with NG. Someone from Enbridge told me we have enough natural gas in Canada to supply every household with enough NG for the next fifty years at least. So why are we not buiding cars to run off of natural gas? Is not NG a lot cleaner than oil?

I'm not an engineer but I think, according to these engineers, the answer is yes ;-)

Combustion Efficiency and Excess Air
Optimizing a boilers efficiency is important to minimize fuel consumption and unwanted excess to the environment
 

And for a discussion on why NG is not the final answer ...

Natural gas is not the low-carbon answer
 

Therefore O students study mathematics and do not build without foundations.
      Leonardo Da Vinci 

natural gas doesn't escape the limitations of oil. fifty years is not a very long time. And, if you were also to use it for cars, it's supply would be far less than fifty years- more like twenty.

At best, it would be a stop gap until we can develop a sustainable energy system.

The way that God designed this world – it just so happens that oxidizing (burning) things that used to be alive produces energy.  Whether it’s recently dead (wood) or long dead (oil).

What did Jesus say?

Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?  “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. ²⁹ Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. ³⁰ If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? ³¹ So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ ³² For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. ³³ But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. ³⁴ Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

Does your church follow Jesus?

Go outside and look all around you look for the farthest tree on the horizon – imagine one leaf on that tree. Now imagine that leaf is Stephen Harper, because Stephen Harper will have about as much effect on this planet as that leaf has on all that you can see. Yet, he is blamed for everything that happens in the world.

We have depleted the stock of easy oil. Cities are built based on liquid energy being available to get around and run machines. That is not going to change in the near future. Alberta oil sands are going to fill some of the void, but not all of it. The other half of the oil sands are in Sask and they will be next on line. Next will be coal – coal can be converted to pretty much all the same things as oil is, like gasoline and diesel, and there are hundreds of years worth of energy stored in coal. Hundreds.

The way God designed this world, people died early of illnesses and accidents and starvation.

We should not intefere with a process that is both natural and divine.