Wednesday, February 7, 2018

Alberta, BC, pipeline

OK, Alberta is my home province, I have relatives in BC (if they don't hang on tight, Albertans kind of slide down to BC, in defiance of all the mountains). So I find this funny.

Kinder Morgan pipeline--really a duplication of an existing pipeline--will pass through urban areas around Vancouver. The proposal has passed all the needed regulatory approvals, and is supported by Justin Trudeau. For Greens in BC, it is a test: do you oppose any further industrial development, because it's all somehow bad? The Premier says there is one specific product that is going to come through the pipeline that is new, and requires further review. The Alberta government (also NDP) says this is unacceptable interference with the project, we're going to boycott BC wine.

It's partly the old downstream problem: the bitumen and other material in the pipeline will come from Alberta, the profit will flow to Alberta. Why should BC put up with the risk? When I was in BC in 2013, the NDP leader thought he needed to be more centrist, so he had said Kinder Morgan did not need a full environmental assessment. As the campaign proceeded, he decided he was at risk of losing seats to the Greens, so he changed his mind and called for a full EA. The Liberal leader, Christy Clark, went on the attack and said this is the same old NDP, anti-business, anti-growth, anti-jobs. The Liberals won. This last time the Greens got 16% of the vote, but only one seat, so naturally they now want some kind of proportional representation. This one seat may be keeping the NDP in power.

Colby Cosh (in Edmonton), joined to some extent by Jen Gerson:

1. Can't believe Albertans actually drink that shitty BC wine.
2. Suggests that BC of all places has so many industrial sites including mines, that this pipeline shouldn't even show up as a risk. A great deal of material flows by pipeline every day without incident, it's safer than using rail cars,crude oil is less volatile (prone to fire and explosion) than gasoline, etc.
3. We should all be used to scary videos by now, so it's not clear how any discussion can be settled by a scary video.
4. Very few people who speak dramatically about threats to human life (including the children, the children) are inclined to propose drastic measures to reduce car crashes.
5. Perhaps the pièce de résistance: BC is particularly earthquake-prone.



Colby Cosh


@colbycosh
8h8 hours ago
More Colby Cosh Retweeted Jen Gerson
It is a LITTLE funny to watch these people who are probably going to have the earth’s crust liquify under them next Tuesday worry so much about the local environmental consequences of a pipe full of goo
Colby Cosh added,
Jen Gerson
Verified account

@jengerson
Replying to @jengerson @northisland140 and 2 others
Secondly, when companies talk about risk profiles happening on 1,300 year timespans, what that tells you is that the risk is really, really, really low. Half of B.C. will have probably fallen into the sea in 1,300 years.
3 replies . 2 retweets 10 likes
Reply 3 Retweet 2 Like 10

No comments:

Post a Comment