THe General Council can malke whatever statement on the issue it wants.  (It has not yet made a statement of course because it has yet to meet)  I fully expect that it will at the very least express concern about the project.  ANd yes this is speaking for the denomination.  But not for the congregations and members. 

And yes I know those two sentences together make little sense.  But that is how it is,.

The UCCan standing with Firs NAtions groups in protest to pipelines goes back to the MAckenzie Valley pipeline debates over 30 years ago.  And that is part of the growth in a new rtelationship with those groups, but not necessarily the acting out of a guilty conscience.

You can find the proposal about Northern Gateway going to GC41 here: 

[PDF] http://ow.ly/cLOZk

The General Council can make any statement on the issue (the Enbridge Pipeline) it wants?  How is this General Council composed?  Are the Council members elected?  Who are the members of the General Council?  How does the General Council govern itself?  Is there a constitution?  Who heads the General Council?  How is that individual determined?

I find I am sadly ingnorant of how the UCC is constituted.  Is there a web site where the structure of the UCC can be explored?  Is there a constitution?  How did the United Church acquire its current status?  Did the UCC come into being through some federal legislation?

Ant help with this matter is greatly appreciated.

Your buddy on the Path - Poguru

This should get you started - About the United Church of Canada: http://united-church.ca/abouta

e

Poguru...you raise some good questions. I have no idea if the UCC has a mandate; I don't believe so. But the Church's reaction is quite typical and in keeping with it's biased slant on things. I don't believe a single Canadian would be surprized nor do Canadians care.

As far as I know not all native groups oppose the pipeline..don't know what the National church does in such a situation..

What would have been really interesting was if the UCC came out in support of the pipeline. But I guess it's easier to come out against it

PKBC: speaking of biased slants, what is  your knowledge of pipelines and what they do? And why should all native groups have to oppose the pipeline before the church can say anything?

In fact, why do any have to oppose it before we can speak?

Do you have any idea of the record of pipelines in general? and of enbridge in particular?

I didn't think so.

I believe the Commission looking at teh proposal has "categorically" come out against the Gateway Pipeline

Not that it will matter. Harper is committed to it. He knows the risks. He knows there is not such think as a safe means of transporting oil. He knows that there is no such thing as effective regulations. He knows there will be damage that will be wide and permanent.

But there's big money in it.

BC has an Oil and gas development in the Fort St. John area,  that started in the 1950’s.

This is the answer I got from the BC Oil & Gas Commission when asked if any BC oil flows in pipe lines in Alberta.

Yes, some of the oil produced in B.C. heads to Alberta for processing. Keeping in mind B.C. is predominantly natural gas, as opposed to oil. If there’s anything else you need just let me know.

For 50 years BC oil and gas has been flowing across Alberta to world markets.

  and  from  Alberta to Vancouver. 

I have never heard anything  about  charges.

The flap is over this one pipeline. Which may or may not go.

I only hope  that BC has the same standard in Alberta

Why is it more dangerous to ship Alberta oil across BC

Than to ship BC oil across AB

Fred, the FSJ area has issues because of the oil and gas. Farmland is being lost and the air is filled with sour gas. It is my understanding that what comes from the Peace/Liard region is different from what comes from the oilsands, or as I learned last night the "in situ bitrumous sands" (sp?) It is my understanding that bitrumin sinks when there is a leak making it very difficult if not impossible to clean up. Oil floats. At least that is my understanding for what it is worth.

The oil and gas industry in northern BC funds a lot of the rest of BC. The WAC Bennett dam provides something like a third of the electricity to BC.

There seems to be a whole lot of other issues, that are put into the equation other than oil flowing through a pipe.

The oilsands process is to separate the oil from the sand.

My knowledge of the tailing ponds. Is that a lot of the water and oil would come to the top (float) and be recovered.  Some of the sand ,sllt and water would not separate and this was the problem.

A process has been fround and is now used. That causes the separation to happen almost instancely.  hopefully making tailings pond the thing of the past.

There is no safe way to get or to transport fossil fuel. It does not exist. I cannot exist. Almost alll the reporting on it is lies. Enbridge recently reported only a few minor accidents in a period of several years. Just recently, CBC announced that there were in fact hundreds of Enbridge accidents in that times, and with 25 million litres spilled.

And, no, you cannot just tidy up. Wherever it is dumped, oil will poison and kill vegetation and wild life - some will escape any clean up to spread through our fresh water and into the sea.

As for the "toughest regulations in the world", forget it. This is oil company talk. There are no regulations that can prevent oil from destroying. The oil industry has alway been brutal, destructive, and lying. It is determined to squeeze every cent it can out of fossil fuels - no matter what damage is done.And It has the full cooperation of most governments and news media.

Added to that is that encouraging the use of such fuels - anywhere - means we are all committing suicide.

graeme

I hope you do not drive a car, ride on a train  fly in an airplane or sail in a ship. If you do you are just as much of the problem as any one else.

I will not defend Enbridge but do you know how many pipeline companys there are.

One of Kinder Morgan (an American Company) pipelines (was the Trans Canada Pipeline) move oil  from Calgary to Vancouver at the rate of 300k B a day. Some of that oil is refined in Vancouver the rest is shiped out to other markets. They are currently expanding it to  700K B.  I have not heard much talk about it.

The "if you're not totally off the grid, then you're part of the problem" approach is a pretty silly argument.  Cars, airplanes, plastic, toiletries... none of these things are going to disappear overnight, and avoiding them is next to impossible.

What is important is recognizing that they ARE problems, and then not dodging the question about their impacts and implications on our world and its finite resources.  I can be a heterosexual, married female and have a valid opinion on same-sex marriage.  I can aim to understand the situation of First Nations people or immigrants in my community without being one of them.  It isn't all or nothing.  If it was, the majority would always drown out the voices of the few, the small, the oppressed.

And so having a voice, an opinion, and trying to make change for justice by understanding the bigger picture - hearing the voices of those we call kin through Christ... that, I believe, is our greatest calling.  It may seem hypocritical to you, but it would be even more hypocritical to be part of a community that I don't want to listen to.

Faerenach,

I agree that the "if you ain't off the grid..." is not a good argument and, more than that, can be an excuse to personally avoid responsibility.  We are called to do better than that.

Faerenach

It is people who prduce oil and fuel. If all these people are brutal,destructive and lying.  And governments and news media cooperate with them.

I just have a better opinion of my fellow man.

Fred Duckett,

People produce gas, I will give you that, especially after a big bowl of chili.....

Your argument here about people producing it and if they do and it is what we say it is that would make them  brutal, destructive and lying along with the government and media... and we should have a better opinion of people.... well, heck that makes nuclear bombs harmless.

Thanks, Fred.

I'm not sure these people are bad. I don't think good and bad have anything do with their behaviour.

We are raised to think in terms of good and bad. The first words I remember are  "No, Graeme. Bad boy." and, more rarely, "That's good boy, Graeme."

But that's not the only way to see the world.

When a lion jumps a wildebeeste, tears it apart and eats it, he's not being either good or bad. He's just satisfying his hunger.

Corporations and governments think the same way. They aren't going to control their hunger because they see nothing wrong with it. It's up to us to define what's good and bad.

My unrealistic hope is that the regulations will include provisions that any failures of a pipeline in the future due to faults in the original construction will result in severe financial penalties to the individuals on the board of directors and the senior managers including the CEO and CFO or their estates at the time of construction.  This would give them an incentive to provide much better oversight than currently exists with much pipeline construction.

It would be nice if such legislation included provision for financial penalties against the senior civil servants and cabinet ministers responsible for government oversight of that construction.

I would certainly agree with that though - it doesn't help.

There will be accidents. There will be human error. The regulations can only make something illegal. They cannot stop it from happening.

And no fine can ever restore the environment.

We need to find alternative energy no matter what the cost. But it's quite evident that neither the government nor the oil industry is interested in that.

By what I have read or heard on the UCC web site is the major concern is the, mining of the oil sand and the chance of an acctident with an oil tanker. The pipeline seems to be an excuse to vent about everything from clearing the mining site to delivering the oil to another site.

I have a nephew who has worked as a electrician in the oil sands for the last twenty years or so. I guess his hope that people will keep using the product (fuel) so his job will continue on.

I also have a grand son inlaw who is a gas fitter in Prince George BC who is dead against the pipeline.

I myself have had some oil field experence. We lived at Tomahawk about twenty thirty K fron Drayton Valley.  I remember hearing of the first oil well.

There is sour wells about 50K west of us for the same amount of time. You had to be carfull with them. Know a person who worked with sour wells most of his wroking life.

Not saying there was not one but I have never heard of anyone being killed by sour gas.

Sour wells have poped up in other locations

I know the people in the oil industry  try to get their product to you as saftly as possible. They do not enjoy a oil spill any more than anyone else.

Workers occasionally die from exposure to sour gas,  If you can't smell it, it is already too late.

Sour gas increases the amount of sulfur in the soil downwind, and this can cause white muscle disease in calves due to competition with selenium.  There are many people with chronic illnesses in the areas where sour gas fields are located that seem to be related to sour gas exposure.  And there are issues about lack of or inadequate warnings when there are escapes of sour gas.  It increases the acidification of lakes and soil in the area as well.

The extremist response of many environmental groups has not been terribly helpful, but the denial and lies by industry and government have been even less helpufl.

Thanks for that response Jim. In our area, there have been deaths related to sour gas. Several groups have spoken out, including the controversial Wiebo Ludwig and his family. If you get a chance to watch the film "Wiebo's War", I would recommend it. It gives one perspective on the issue.

I agree that some of the environmental groups have not been helpful. Never-the-less, they have helped to get the discussion moving. I have lived in this area for 13 years. I have a mixed opinion about the oil and gas industry. It drives our economy in this area, and we all use the product daily. At the same time, I have seen more and more oil or gas well sprouting up in the landscape and that is disturbing. The oil and gas industry can and must be environmentally responsible.

Sure. Oil companies are very concerned about our well-being. That's why Exxon and BP, among others, have refused to pay more than limited amounts for oil spills. That's why they like to settle suits out of court. That's why they send troops to get killed and to kill hundreds of thousands in order to get cheap oil.

That's why plant and animal species are disappearing

But, hey, nothing like a steady job wtih enough left for a few beers in the evening.