IE10 and below are not supported.

Contact us for any help on browser support

What do you believe are the most important issues the Government should address in its plan to formalize a crude oil tanker moratorium?

9 months ago
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.
ETNIKS 8 months ago
The choice is clear: 1-Short term gains 2-Long term gainsOil is the Short term profit while damaging the Long term objectives for a healthy society.The choice is Long term renewable energy production, leaving the oil in Alberta to fuel its own manufacturing of plastics, and the many other uses oil has for producing consumer goods
Alfor99 8 months ago
First things first, let's understand why the moratorum has been proposed. Pandering to Obama, the Trudeau government has successfully been lobbied to shut down Canada's crude oil ventures in the west. This is to maintain a low crude price for Americans by preventing competition for our crude. Why? So that Americans can buy our unprocessed bitumen at deep discounts, upgrade it in the southern U.S, and sell the final products on the world stage for a handsome profit. In doing so, the U.S. creates and sustains well paying jobs, and the confidence of their investors. Do we have the technology in place to complete the task of Trans-pacific crude shipment safely and successfully? People trust the engineering, planning, operation, and maintenance of air travel systems. Accidents still occur, however, statisticly air travel is still the safest form of travel. The same can be said for pipelines and tanker traffic. We have the knowledge and capabilities to safely and successfully transport crude from our BC coast. The international energy markets are thirsty for Canadian crude, and the profit margins will support state of the art technologies and standards. Many of us get up everyday and work hazardous jobs or in safety sensitive positions. Scaffolers, Police officers, Construction Crews, and Firefighters, are just a few of the riskier ventures we make daily. Thank goodness that doesn't stop these important people from doing their jobs. The old saying, "nothing ventured nothing gained" applies directly to our energy exports. One of the most profitible industries in the world, and Canada is getting benched. Are there risks? Yes, Can we manage those risks? Apsolutely.My background is an Engineering Technologist, with speciality in Electronics, and twelve years industry experience. I'm from Alberta, and have been affected by the landlock. I've also witnessed first hand the families losing their homes, an increased needs list at food banks, and finally, I've witnessed the drastic increase in suicide rates in parts of Alberta. Please understand that all Canadians need this route access, and we're looking to partner with BC in the protection of our BC waters and lands.
Hide Replies (54)
BritishColumbianNotAlbertan 8 months ago
This is slightly off topic as this is about marine transport, but does the proposed tanker terminal and pipeline have anti-earthquake measures designed into it? Everyone who lives in BC knows the west coast is prime quake country, occasionally Richter Scale 8 quake country.
Hide Replies (2)
Alfor99 8 months ago
I'm unfamiliar with earthquake contingencies, I will look into it, and provide feedback of my findings. Thank-you for reading my post.
Nklatt 8 months ago
Every building in Northern BC is designed with earthquakes in mind. Industrial complexes are built with the same earth quake protections that goes into those structures built on the west coast of North America and Japan where seismic activity is normal.
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
Beautifully said. Thank you.
Frank Mitchell 8 months ago
The origin of the moratorium idea was in the 80;s, and was pushed by David Anderson (before he became Environment Minister) on the basis of the extremely dangerous waters, and the delicacy of the environment (coastal, and on the sea floor). For a long time, everyone understood the moratorium remained in effect. Until the last government dispelled our illusions. Hence the need for legislation on this issue.
JpinBC 8 months ago
This is not about profits. I empathize with those who have been employed in the oil sands industry who are now struggling to make ends meet. For a long time, they were making very good incomes and I can only hope they saved some of their money for harder times. Commodities have always been boom and bust industries, and these days are bust times. Those in the bitumen industry need to face the fact that the world is not in the same place that it was when this industry started. The world is in a climate crisis and your former high paying jobs are part of the reason. Things change. It's hard to be a typewriter salesman in the age of computers and it's hard to be in a carbon intensive industry in a world with melting icecaps and rising sea levels. Yes, your livelihoods are important, but so too are the livelihoods of the people on the islands of the Pacific that are disappearing under rising waters. So too are the homes of the people living in low lying coastal regions all around the globe. By the end of this century it's estimated that hundreds of millions of people will be displaced by climate change. It's hard enough to accommodate the few millions that have been displaced by the wars in the Middle East, what's to become of these hundreds of millions? There are jobs to be had in clean sustainable energy just as much as there were jobs to be had in bitumen production. I would be all for providing retraining of bitumen workers for these new jobs and making Alberta an epicenter of economic progress by locating sustainable energy production there. It'd also be a lot safer for the workers than their jobs producing bitumen. I ask that those who have worked in bitumen production to stop trying to create new infrastructure for an industry that must soon become an anachronism if life as we know it is to continue on this planet. It's not just typewriter salesmen, blacksmiths and bitumen workers who must adapt to changing times. As technology advances the number of jobs that will be lost to automation will only grow. Change is always difficult, but this change away from fossil fuels is one that absolutely must be made.
Hide Replies (43)
Alfor99 8 months ago
You are right on select accounts, and yes this debate is not about profits. For many years people from BC have had the opportunity to obtain employment in Alberta. Many from BC have enjoyed fly in/out positions only to sink those earnings into their home towns. And that's fine, it's the benifit of a strong economic footing. In all likelihood you have a family member or friend that has kept the promise of Alberta as a last resort for a better life. Would you deny us of that now?Yes the oil patch consists not only of high paying jobs, but of many more service positions, where the pay is less than half of the patch salary. How many years can a food bank worker sustain a family from savings? Not many, this senerio results in broken familes and suicide rates, as I have mentioned.In regards to your climate change retoric and rising waters, I can only offer you my experiences living on the coast of Newfoundland for thirty years. Ocean levels have never and will never increase at a rate that would force people out of their homes as a result of melting ice. Furthermore, and as Canadians, we understand the hoax of climate change better than most. Why? Because we bear witness to said change every fall, and again in the spring. Yes, I will patronize any Canadian climate activist in this manner. Most of us have a good picture of what Canada looks like during winter, and that includes the entire North Pole, Russia, Greenland, Iceland, and China. That's right, winter doesn't stop at borders. If anything we should be worrying about the expanding deserts instead of ice melt, at least the desert measurements are accurate.As for antiquated technologies, such as typewriters, there can be no association between market demand, and obsolescence. Oil use has not even begun the redundancy process. I would not even seek to verify such a fact until the last piece of needed coal has been used for fuel. As I mentioned in the thread above, I'm an Electronics Technologist. I look forward to the day of electric cars and alternative energy. I'd be next in line for that job. Unfortunately, that day will not occur in my lifetime as most alternative sources are bankrupt ideas. Best case senerio It's estimated that alternative sources such as tidal, solar, and thermal could supply some 20% of global demands. Who has to adjust lifestyles now?I understand the connection between the people of BC and their world-renowned waters and lands. I share that same passion for the lands around my home town, Fort McMurray. You should witness the wildlife re-inhabitanting reclaimed lands that were once massive open pit mines. It restores one's faith in industry, and gives me hope everyday. I only wish cars, planes, and ships were fueled with hope. Wait, maybe that fuel is hope.
Hide Replies (38)
kevansears 8 months ago
Excellent words--wish these green people work hear them...
Hide Replies (2)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
"Wish these green people work hear them"????
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
would hear them...
JpinBC 8 months ago
Alfor99, if you believe climate change is a hoax you are no scientist -- unless you can come up with something a good deal more compelling than the anecdotal observations that you have supplied. The vat majority of climate scientists, 97% of them have studied this phenomenon and quantified it with massive data spanning decades. The fact that you can look out your window in the winter and see snow is not a scientific proof. And if you believe that it is, there is no point in my arguing with you. But I would point out to those reading these posts for the purpose of making a decision on the oil tanker BAN, which I wholeheartedly support, that your position is unsupported by the accumulated data and science.
Hide Replies (33)
Alfor99 8 months ago
As you may of gathered, I'm an intense reader who prefers gathering information from multiple sources, including satellite imagery, and historical trends. I find what works in most cases is a practical inspection, followed by an analysis of information. Data can be interpreted many different ways, and simply saying the science is conclusive doesn't warant change. Where are your sources? I can only assume you have none. I offered real observation, direct industry experience, and accredited knowledge, can you say the same?
Hide Replies (31)
JpinBC 8 months ago
Satellite imagery does not address the thickness of the ice, which is substantially less than it was 50 years ago. Take a walk on the Columbia Glacier. As you approach it you will see signs noting the rate of its retreat, which has accelerated dramatically in the last 50 years at a rate unmatched by any in history. Nine of the hottest years on record are all in the last ten years. The famous "Northwest Passage" of open sea across northern Canada that had been sought unsuccessfully for centuries because it was always blocked by ice is now open and navigable. The Greenland ice sheet is melting at record rates. These are documented facts. I don't much care where you get your information from. If your information is in denial of these facts, your information and analysis is wrong.
Hide Replies (30)
Alfor99 8 months ago
Retreating glacier ice has been occurring for thousands of years. At one point in history glacier even covered parts of the U.S., and yes, of course melting rates would increase as the amounts of ice have been reduce that significantly. This isn't a new phenomenon, It's been happening naturally for thousands of years.
Hide Replies (27)
JpinBC 8 months ago
Not at anything remotely approaching the rate that's happening now. And while the reduction in existing ice does, indeed, increase the rate of retreat, that factor does not begin to account for the full acceleration. There have been up and down fluctuations in the mean global temperature forever, but there has never been one as abrupt as the one we've created through our CO2 emissions. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/04/speed-glacier-retreat-worldwide-historically-unprecedented-climate-change I will even grant another source you would probably have liked to mention -- vast methane emissions from permafrost melting -- but it is still our actions and our continued reckless behaviour that has triggered the melting of the permafrost. We cannot continue to encourage ever greater use of fossil fuels without risking passing a tipping point for which our children and grandchildren will pay a price far heavier than the loss of some jobs. There are populated islands in the Pacific that are right now in the process of become submerged by rising sea water. Those people are without not just their homes and livelihoods, but their entire country. I'm not saying we must stop all use of fossil fuels right this minute and return to the stone age. We have little choice but to continue to rely on the existing fossil fuel infrastructure for the immediate present, but we absolutely must dispense with the expansion of the use of fossil fuels going forward. We have the technology to do so, and the more we utilize that technology the more it will improve and grow. That is the direction Canada must take if it is to prosper going forward because that is the direction the world must take if civilization is to survive. Canada should do everything possible to become a world leader in clean technologies because that is the only viable option for the future. More pipelines and dangerous tankers (this site is still about the BAN, after all) are about as short sighted as we can get from an economic perspective -- in addition to being morally bankrupt from the perspective of violation of First Nations treaty rights and sovereignty. I've previously made the analogy of the destruction of the typewriter industry by the coming of the personal computer. The analogy is apt, only it is climate change that is demanding the phasing out of fossil fuels as climate change is the defining issue of this century. The loss of jobs in the typewriter industry was a terrible thing for those who had to experience it, but ultimately the computer industry created far more jobs than were lost. I believe it will be the same for those in the fossil fuel industry. There will be new jobs to which they can transition, and I certainly hope the government would do everything possible to speed that transition and make it easier. But just as it would have made no sense to press on in the manufacture of typewriters, it makes no sense now to press on in the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure. And it makes even less sense to endanger the marine ecosystem of the BC coast with tanker traffic to market the equivalent of typewriters.
Hide Replies (26)
Alfor99 8 months ago
I understand your fear of what the future may bring. Standing still by preventing energy shipment off the West coast is not an option. Nova Scotia, PEI, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland & Labrador are all in. I'm proud to say my fellow country-people on the East Coast have chosen to stand with Canadians, and have chosen a warmer, more secure future. We risk the Grand Banks, one of the world's most diverse spawning grounds. And risk, don't tell me the pass in BC waters are too risky, the Atlantic is harsh and cruel, you've no idea the souls we've lost to her, and tragedy we've endured so that our children might have a better future. It's time for Canadian citizens in the West to stand with us.
Alfor99 8 months ago
Your source concludes two things, glacier retreat is accelerating, and that GHG are to blame. As I already mentioned this is a natural occurring phenomenon. Here's an interesting fact; methane from livestock waste has more than ten times the impact on GHG emissions compared with the burning of fossil fuels. How do you explain that?
Hide Replies (24)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
That's not a fact; it's a theory.
Hide Replies (23)
Alfor99 8 months ago
JpinBC 8 months ago
You are entirely misreading the data provided by this article, which clearly states that the amount of methane released into the atmosphere will grow precipitously as the earth continues to warm, further accelerating the warming process. The article you have linked to is, if anything, a very potent argument against further fossil fuel development and any other human sources of GHGs. What we've already emitted has already triggered the release of vast quantities of previously frozen methane and has accelerated the production of even more methane in ponds and other sources due to higher temperatures and further decomposition. Yes, cattle ranching does produce copious quantities of methane, but pointing to the various individual components of GHG production and saying "this one is the one that must be curtailed" or "that one must be curtailed" is a strategy of distraction. The fact is that ALL sources of GHG emissions must be reduced with all possible speed -- and that means not building additional pipeline infrastructure and banning all unsafe tanker activity. It should also include devising ways to reduce or capture and contain methane production from livestock, but that is beyond the scope of this website.
Hide Replies (21)
kevansears 8 months ago
So why are you not protesting in the US as they massively expand their pipelines...?
Hide Replies (12)
JpinBC 8 months ago
Actually, I'm a dual citizen and I'm fighting the expansion of pipelines in the US just as hard as I'm fighting them here. Climate change is a global issue, which is why we must not think it's okay to be sending bitumen to China and then disavow the resultant GHGs of those exports CO2 as being China's responsibility, not ours. This is one small planet and we've all got to start taking responsibility for our actions or our children and grandchildren will pay a very, very heavy price.
Hide Replies (11)
Alfor99 8 months ago
My children will best be served with quality education opportunities, and a reduced debt load. Don't presume to know what's best for our children. I wouldn't trust you with the future of my family. You'd have us on the street, if it ment you didn't have to see new pipelines, and tankers in the bay.
Hide Replies (10)
JpinBC 8 months ago
I understand that your own wellbeing and the wellbeing of your children is your priority, and that at this point in time your ability to take care of yourself and your children rests on the continuation -- and perhaps even the expansion -- of the fossil fuel industry. Your personal future feels heavily invested in it. Even so, your children and grandchildren will suffer from the effects of climate change. They will live in a world destabilized by displaced persons from rising seas, the spread of diseases like Zika and Malaria that will no longer be confined to the tropics. There are consequences that come with the manner in which you wish to provide for your family. Don't believe me? Here is the science: https://www.cicsnc.org/about/tsu/nca3-data I wish the best for you and your family. I really do. But I also wish the best for this planet and all the people on it. And what is best for the planet is to phase our fossil fuel usage as quickly as possible. That does not mean immediately, but it does mean that we must stop the expansion of their use immediately. We must stop building the infrastructure that would allow for even more use of fossil fuels as that is a suicidal path for a large percentage of the life on this planet. If your livelihood was dependent on creating chemical weapons of war, I would suggest that there were better ways for you to make a living. The fact is that your livelihood is based on creating the equivalent of chemical weapons, GHGs will kill more slowly, but just as effectively. I grant you, it's far easier for me to say than for you to do, but it would be good if you could find a job that didn't contribute to the destruction of the planet.
Hide Replies (9)
Alfor99 8 months ago
Industry, all industry has adverse effects on the planet. The very minute you make a choice or decision you've likely impacted the planet in some form. Our lives are in many ways fabricated from processes implemented to survive the earth comfortably. Why stand in the way of progress for an improved state of living for all Canadians?
Hide reply (1)
JpinBC 8 months ago
Not all industries are created equal, and not all industries necessarily have to have deleterious effects on the planet. Electricity generated by solar, wind, tidal forces, and geothermal do vastly less damage to the planet than energy generated by coal, oil, or even natural gas. As we overrun the planet with our species the only responsible course of action is to mitigate the damage we inflict upon it to the greatest degree possible. We can improve the state of living for all Canadians in a great many ways other than expanding fossil fuel infrastructure -- including expanding the infrastructure for sustainable, non-polluting energy sources. This is not an either-or situation, my friend. The choice is not fossil fuels or poverty. Fossil fuels are an outmoded energy source. They are a backward looking technology. Canada's prosperity is better served by going forward with 21st century solutions rather than 20th century leftovers.
Alfor99 8 months ago
Two things:You continuouly express empthy without action, which essentially is nothing at all but insincere and false.You claim to want to save humanity from itself. Do you belive future lives lost as a result of an activist theroy are more valuable than those ending their lives as a result of broken homes and financial ruin now?The lives of all Canadians matter equally. As long as BC remains part of the federation, a duty to fellow Canadians should be upheld in the best interests of us all.
Hide Replies (6)
JpinBC 8 months ago
The only action that would appear to satisfy you would be to agree with your preferred approach to solving your employment situation -- when your preferred solution tramples on my environment and upon the rights of BC First Nations to determine how best to care for their lands. Having empathy for you does not mean agreeing to the damage that you want to incur on the planet in order to secure your livelihood. I'm sorry, I really am, that you are in the situation that you're in, but I'm also sorry that the First Nations are having to engage in a constant struggle in order to maintain the rights that they were guaranteed when Canada took over most of the land that, until then, had all belonged to them. I'm sorry that I must be constantly vigilant and must constantly write letters, emails and attend meetings to oppose tanker traffic that could literally engulf my entire community in an explosion if an accident were to occur in the wrong part of the channel in front of my house. You are trying to defend your job, but no one is coming to your neighborhood and threatening a conflagration. No one is threatening to kill all the wildlife in your area or eliminate all the other ways of making a living other than the oil and gas industry. I am on this site just as you are in order to take action in the only way I can to protect the things that I value. I fully empathize with your situation, but I do not support your solution as I believe that your solution is not in my best interest, or British Columbia's best interest, or in the best interest of the First Nations of British Columbia, nor in the best interest of Canada, nor the world. Yes, the lives of all Canadians matter equally, but when there is a dispute between some Canadian and other Canadians, the outcome which is in the best interest of the greatest number of people is the outcome that should prevail. In a world already dealing with massive ecological stresses from ocean acidification and coral reef collapse, the highest rate of species extinction since the asteroid that took out the dinosaurs, forest destruction and all the current and coming effects of climate change, it is madness to further expand the fossil fuel infrastructure which will only exacerbate these problems. Your interests matter, but they do not matter more than the greater good of the planet's survival.
Hide Replies (5)
Alfor99 8 months ago
Poverty, famine, disease, and homelessness are a few of the causes I fight against, and right now you are part of those problems. I must also advise you, I'm only speaking out of desperation for those affected by the depression. I've already worked twenty years, and obtained an education. My job now is to ensure there is responsible gainful employment for future generations.
Hide Replies (3)
JpinBC 8 months ago
"My job now is to ensure there is responsible gainful employment for future generations."And my point is that there is nothing "responsible" about further employment in any aspect of expanding the use of fossil fuels in the future. Doing so is the height of irresponsibility. Would you have advised them to work as blacksmiths in 1920? Icemen in the 1930s? Typewriter manufacturers in the 1970s? Photographic film manufacturers in the 1990s? You have chosen to hitch their stars to an industry that MUST be curtailed in order for civilization as we know it to survive. There is absolutely nothing responsible about that, and it's not me that is your enemy. It's the laws of chemistry, physics, biology and climate science. According to those laws, even if you win, you lose. If you win, we all lose -- including you and your descendents.
Hide Replies (2)
Alfor99 8 months ago
Your ideology contributes directly towards poverty, homelessness, spread of disease, crime rates, and sucide rates. You should be ashamed. You need to give your head a shake, and wake up to reality.
Hide reply (1)
JpinBC 8 months ago
Actually, yours contributes to pollution that poisons and impoverishes the land, water and livelihoods of all those not working for the polluters. Here's the article:http://www.takepart.com/feature/2016/09/30/how-west-was-lost-ranchers-devastated-fossil-fuel-boom?cmpid=tpdaily-eml-2016-09-30And, in the process you continue to feed climate destruction which will devastate the entire world bringing -- yes -- homelessness, disease, crime and suicide. Your agenda is by far the more destructive and it is certainly you, not me, that should be ashamed.
hambone 8 months ago
Wow, you sure live in fear. Must be awful. Totally overblown unfounded fear, but fear nevertheless. I suggest you look at the real risks that you face, which are quite quantifiable, and don't be steered by unfounded rhetoric.
hambone 8 months ago
You keep talking about "unsafe tanker activity". In fact, tankers are extremely safe. They are one of the most regulated industries in the world. Cars, on the other hand, cause tens of thousands of deaths a year. Maybe we should ban them? They also emit the majority of GHG emissions in Canada. Maybe you should give up driving Virginia. You will be safer and contribute less to emissions. You want to contain the cows farts? Really? I will be interested in your ideas on that one!
Hide Replies (7)
JpinBC 8 months ago
"In fact, tankers are extremely safe."That is not true, and I note that you provide no evidence to support your statement. Here are three articles with data to support mine, that even double hulled tankers are not safe -- particularly in crowded, obstructed channels prone to strong currents and heavy storms:http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2010/09/27/DoubleHullTankers/(External link)http://www.ceida.org/prestige/Documentacion/dobrecascopetroleiros.pdf(External link)http://www.livingoceans.org/media/releases/double-hulled-oil-tankers-do-not-ensure-protection-against-spills(External link)You are right that cars cause tens of thousands of deaths a year and a great deal of the GHG pollution -- and currently they provide the major demand for the fossil fuels whose use many here seem anxious to expand. I will be a lot happier about cars -- and trucks -- when they are all electrically powered and self driving. Even at this very early stage, it's been shown that computerized, self driving cars and trucks will greatly reduce accidents and improve the flow of traffic. They would improve fuel efficiency and reduce emissions even in gasoline powered vehicles. So, as soon as I can get my hands on a self driving car, I will indeed give up driving. Cow farts? They can be drastically reduced by adopting a healthier diet containing less red meat. Clearly, attempting to produce sufficient quantities of beef for an expanding population of humans already more than 7 billion strong is a formula for cow fart disaster. But with a small lifestyle change in which most people chose to eat beef no more than once a week, we could get by with a lot less cattle. And I'm sure you'd agree that less cattle would result in fewer cow farts.
Hide Replies (6)
hambone 8 months ago
Tried your links. None of them work. If you compare the number of vessels that move every day, and the accidents, shipping is one of the most safe industries in the world. Over 100 tankers enter the Port of Vancouver every year. Never been an accident. Over 800 a year go into Port Angeles, Washington every year. Never been an accident. Have accidents world wide, yes. But Not all regions of the world are regulated the same. Canadian safety standards are already amongst the highest in the world. As for those electric self driving cars - you do know that they are filled with petroleum products like plastic, and it takes tremendous energy to make the steel right? Yes - cow farts - i.e. Methane. I don't think your plan of turning the world's seven million people into quasi vegetarians is realistic. I for one have no plans to give up steaks and hamburgers.
Hide Replies (5)
JpinBC 8 months ago
Sorry about the links. The site added the words (External link) to the addresses and that's why they didn't work. I've the problem, so if you want to read them, you can. Here:http://www.ceida.org/prestige/Documentacion/dobrecascopetroleiros.pdfhttp://www.livingoceans.org/media/releases/double-hulled-oil-tankers-do-not-ensure-protection-against-spillshttp://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2010/09/27/DoubleHullTankers/Yes, electric vehicles are not petroleum free. But they do not BURN petroleum, which is the bigger issue. A one time use of petroleum to make plastics is not the same thing at all as requiring gasoline constantly in order to run. Likewise the energy to make steel. Steel production does not generate anywhere near the GHGs that transportation produces -- including the huge amounts of fuel required to push around those double hulled tankers you like so much. Mind your math. If the world only had seven MILLION people, pollution from human sourced GHGs wouldn't be a problem. But it's seven BILLION people and growing every day. I don't have a plan for turning people into any kind of vegetarian, quasi or otherwise, I only suggest that it would be healthier for people and healthier for the planet if they ate less meat. Feel free to eat all the steak and hamburgers you want. They're your arteries and you have a right to clog them however you see fit. What I'm saying here is that, unlike your arteries, the waterways of BC should NOT be clogged with whatever you choose to clog them with -- in this case tankers filled with enough oil to cause an ecological disaster in the event of an accident -- and enough GHGs to greatly hasten the effects of climate change if they pass through the channels unscathed.
Hide Replies (4)
hambone 8 months ago
Spell check got me. I am aware there are 7 Billion people. I agree, fundamentally, with exploring options for cleaner options. But you ignored the essence of my arguments. You are overstating the risks of tanker accidents and are frankly being an alarmist. The safe operation of tankers in BC coastal waters is a well established reality. In terms of GHGs, Canada is, overall, a carbon sink. Our GHGs represent 2 percent of the world total. We should not forego the competitive advantages we have in natural resources while the other nations of the world contribute 98 percent of those green house gases. That would be ludicrous. Petroleum products are used in a great many products we use every day. We will continue to need them. That oil can be provided by dictatorial human rights abusers, or our fellow Canadians. I will take the latter thanks. And as for my health, let me assure you, I'm in great shape. Inside and out.
Hide Replies (3)
JpinBC 8 months ago
I'm pleased that you're in great shape, inside and out. I bear you no personal animus. I do, however disagree that "m being an alarmist with respect to tanker safety. The fact that there have been no major accidents thus far does not take into account the vast increase in tanker traffic that would result from the currently proposed pipelines and terminals. These ships will have to pass each other within the narrow confines of channels strewn with obstructions both above and below the surface as well as unpredictable weather and currents. Here's an article providing further detail to that:http://www.straight.com/news/467486/more-tanker-traffic-raises-stakes-bc-coastWith regard to Canada being a carbon sink, the amount of carbon that would be generated by exporting all our bitumen to countries that then burned it would be way more carbon than Canada is capable of sequestering. It's easy for Canada to sequester more carbon than our population uses, as our population is very small in relation to our land mass. But if we massively ship our bitumen to the world it becomes a game changer in the GHG equation. Remember, bitumen is by far the most carbon intensive of any of the sources of petroleum. So, it produces more GHGs to extract and transport, then it produces more GHGs to refine, and then it produces more GHGs to burn. Triple whammy. And the notion that it should be Canadians that profit by the destruction of the planet through climate change rather than "dictatorial human rights abusers" is bankrupt from both an ethical and practical point of view. GHG emissions, left unchecked, will wreak havoc on the planet and its ability to support life. The point of the debate on these pages is whether we, as Canadians, will be part of the problem or part of the solution. Creating excuses in order to justify massive bitumen exports is definitely being part of the problem. Fostering the rapid expansion of sustainable energy, making the burning of fossil fuels obsolete as rapidly as possible is being part of the solution -- with the added advantage that by making the burning of fossil fuels obsolete we are also putting those dictatorial human rights abusers out of business. Yes, we will continue to need petroleum products during this essential transition, but the vital concept is that we must focus on reducing their use, not expanding it. That is the only responsible course of action. The proposed pipelines and the expansion of tanker traffic in the BC coastal waters will result either in short term environmental disasters as a result of tanker accidents or the even worse long term environmental and social disasters that will accompany more rapid and severe climate change.
Hide Replies (2)
hambone 8 months ago
You make a lot of great points, and in reality we are not that far apart. My issue is this. The transition will cost money. That money has to come from somewhere. Every aspect of the green technology industry is subsidized by government taxes. Those taxes have to come from somewhere. Investment in the green industry means that we need to have money coming in. Cold hard cash. The big resurgence of our manufacturing industry is simply not happening. Canada is, and has always been, a country that has depended upon its natural resources. I don't see that changing. We have the resources, and other people need those resources. Ideological wishful thinking won't make the change. A plan that accounts for the real economic costs of that transition is what will make it happen. As it happens, I am not a big fan of shipping raw products (logs, oil, minerals) to other countries. I would like to see a process of adding value through refinement and secondary industries. However, the numbers have to work. You state that we can be part of the problem, or part of the solution. Well, we won't be either without taking advantage of our competitive advantages. If you want Canada to "lead" in developing technologies to reduce oil use, that is fine. I am not against that. I am just a realist - I want to know where the money is coming from to achieve that dream, because if we don't take advantage of our natural resources when people actually need them, there will be no financing of any green initiatives. I pay $1.25 a litre for gas, the highest costs in the country, and I have seen the BC Government do NOTHING to justify those carbon taxes that are elevating the price of our fuel. I have actually seen the risk studies on tanker incidents. The odds are approximately one event in 10,000 years or more, with the additional traffic. Sure, it could happen, theoretically, but the hysterical predictions on this and other sites are completely at odds with the risk assessments. The fact that Canada imports oil from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and the United States is criminal when we have our own oil - we just can't get it to market. The fact that we accept a $20 discount on the oil we do sell because we can't get our oil to tide water is INSANE. We have foregone BILLIONS in potential tax revenues, which could have paid for your green initiatives, amongst other things because we can only sell to one customer who won't pay market rate - because we don't have to. Indeed, there are American interests that are laughing their way to the bank because of the Canadian green movement (financed in many cases by American interests) because well intentioned Canadians that are guided by ideology, are working in American oil interests. You have ben duped!
Hide reply (1)
JpinBC 8 months ago
Well, you and I are in total agreement that we should be refining and developing secondary uses for our fuel rather than shipping out the raw dilbit. So, let's explore that line of thinking for a moment and see if we can't reach further agreement. If we were to invest in the infrastructure to refine the oil that we have, and manufacture plastic products from it as well, wouldn't that be vastly better than creating pipelines and adding tanker traffic in order to ship the raw material away and let others add the value to it? As you say, we're importing oil, or gasoline, and that's crazy when we could be making and using it ourselves. And it would cost less. We could certainly eliminate those imports, at the very least. As for subsidies, one is hard pressed to find an industry that does not receive them. The oil and gas industries certainly has received very preferential treatment from the government for as long as it's been in operation, and it continues to benefit. I'm not even going to complain about that, as it is an appropriate function of government to subsidize industries that are essential to national security and national economic security -- which is why clean, sustainable industry needs to be subsidized now.The discount on the oil we sell is NOT because we can't get the oil to the coast. It's because bitumen is extremely heavy, difficult and expensive to refine. Sour oil from Venezuela is also heavily discounted, as is sour oil from Saudi Arabia. Dilbit is even lower quality than Venezuelan oil, so it gets sold at a hefty discount, particularly in a market that is currently glutted with oil (though it likely won't be glutted for that much longer). That being the case, and it being the case that fracked oil from the south is of vastly higher quality than our dilbit, and it being the case that as soon as the price of oil goes up that fracked oil from the south will start flowing again, we will never be able to get anything but heavily discounted prices for our bitumen. So, with costs of extraction high and return on investment low (thanks to discounts) we are vastly better off refining and using the oil ourselves than we are shipping it halfway around the world at low margins. And those low margins will dictate that corners are likely to be cut in the safety and maintenance protocols, making accidents and spills more likely.I readily acknowledge and agree that the transition to clean energy will not happen overnight and that we need to use the resources we have now in order to fund the transition. But we can do so in a way that is more economically sound, cleaner, and smarter than building new pipelines and adding more tanker traffic. By adding refining and value added manufacturing we create more jobs and improve our economy vastly more than by piping dilbit to the coasts and shipping it out at low margin prices.There is no need to go to conspiracy theories. The US advantage is not based on Canadians being duped into an untenable ideology, and if you have any proof that the Canadian green movement is being financed by US oil interests, I invite you to produce it. The fact is that the American petrochemical industry's competitive advantage rests on its vastly greater capacity to refine and add value as well as the superior quality and relative ease of extraction of its crude -- making it cheaper to produce and transport. And if you think that creating pipelines and adding tankers is going to level the playing field with them, then it is you who have been duped.
Lordaren 8 months ago
Isn't it antarctica thats not decreasing ice and actuallly gaining more right now...
Hide reply (1)
JpinBC 8 months ago
No. It's not. It's melting there as well.Read this: http://time.com/4340269/antarctica-climate-change-ice-melt/
hambone 8 months ago
If every Canadian ceased using all GHG emitting technologies right now, we would not affect climate change whatsoever. Indeed overall, despite our high per capita energy use (due to our extreme climate) overall Canada is carbon sink. We contribute TWO percent to global emissions and if you think that the US, Russia, China or India care about our "leadership" on climate change you are kidding yourself.
MaryInga 8 months ago
Climate science is indesputable....to quote George Monbiot in an essay called 'Junk Science': It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb - a crumb that then dissolves in your palm. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world's most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals....And you must do all this, while calling yourself a scientist." (p.32, BRING ON THE APOCALYPSE; 2008)I wish it weren't so. But it is, so hard or not, we have to leave our fossil fuel dreams behind us, and move as quickly as possible into a non carbon world. To do that, we have to rethink our extractivist model of wealth creation, and our export driven pipedreams of the quick buck. Yes. It's going to be difficult. But keeping crude oil mammoth tankers out of our Pacific Northwest waters is one small step. That area is still pristine and fertile. The future is going to need it to remain so.
MaryInga 8 months ago
Very persuasively argued, and I do believe that everyone who knows in some detail the realities of climate change, and how fast it is moving, and with how many positive feedback loops already kicking in (that fire in Fort Mac being one of them), feels as you do.The problem is that many people invested in oil production have economic reasons to have swallowed the junk science that climate criminals like EXXON, spewed into the public airwaves for the last 30 years. In Alberta, you can't get into these kinds of discussions without denialists going into rants about how its all a hoax, the climate has always changed, etc. etc. Yes. Once you understand climate change....and how past a certain level of CO2 in the atmosphere, there is absolutely nothing anyone is going to be able to do....tankers carrying raw bitumen to slave upgraders and refineries in China, seems suicidal....But Big Oil has fudged on climate science for years, because it figured out precisely that, long before the general public began to. We've got to run mighty fast now, to get up tyo speed.
Hide Replies (3)
kevansears 8 months ago
Sure so lets shock the system and leap into renewable energy by 2050, WOW!
Hide Replies (2)
MaryInga 8 months ago
We play 'can't do' games, when the solutions aren't our solutions...or in our perceived 'economic' interest. But whether climate change deniers believe it or not, science based decision making must become de rigour if we are to have a future. Yes. I know it's a hard reality we're looking at....and that change is difficult for the comfortable. But real science is what we need to listen to now. If we could produce the killing machines and infrastructures to win the second world war, as quickly as we did........we can begin transtioning as quickly as well. Which does not mean that oil and gas will cease to be useful...quite the contrary.What it does mean is that we save the billions (that always seem readily available, though I'm a bit concerned as from where we may be pulling them) fossil fuel industries want to spend on ripping and shipping....and we divert much of that into more local production. Industries are more likely to be sustainable, close to home. The poisonous by-products of bitumen refining (and don't try to tell informed citizens they don't exist) will be dealt with better if its your food shed being trashed. Transportation costs will be kept at a minumum. Real jobs will be kept in Canada....and yes, at living wages, so the so called 'profits' will be more widely shared.Transitioning as quickly as possible off fossil fuels means another economic model. Something more respectful of the land, water, and local populations. And all the studies tell us that way forward will make more jobs than a one off pipeline, or three....to someone else's coastline. Green energy isn't centralized and it doesn't waste resources on expensive 'corridors' here there and everywhere. It is harvested everywhere, locally....and so the jobs of necessity, stay at home. Only mathematically challenged folk (as Jimmy said, math is hard, for some of us) would consider selling or buying electricity from afar....too much inefficiency, in actual scientifc fact. Producing clean energy close to home is the way of the future...if we have one.Do some reading.....off petro-chemical sites....and you will be encouraged to discover that we can have a vibrant, but fading fossil fuel industry, and a rapidly implemented green technology. Its the export of raw materials and then the return of the finished product model that this tanker ban will limit.And that will be a beneficial thing.
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
MaryInga, I do not agree with you,Most Green projects go bankrupt after gov subsidies stop! Need to keep reasonable development but in the near future definitely this is not sustainable!https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/16/bp-dropped-green-energy-projects-worth-billions-to-focus-on-fossil-fuelsWest49th about 12 hours agoI for one do not buy into the global warming scare and Trudeau had no right to tie the country to that agreement. It's an arbitrary date that many scientists not on the government payroll disagree with. The Swiss have just halted their Green Initiative Project saying it is too costly trying to do "too much too soon". That is what Trudeau has done.(West49th--could you share where this information could be found on the Swiss--Thank you
Jskventures 8 months ago
Agreed!
Energy_Exports_are_vital 8 months ago
Indeed. Ban E-Canada oil imports too. Where is the proposed ban on oil imports by boat into E-Canada ? Shut down Quebec's Bombardier plane and Ontario's car industry too. Far too much CO2 emission by these planes and cars !Do folks opposed drive a car ? Do they use plastic ? Do they take a ferry or a plane sometimes ? They all need oil ! Exxon Valdez was 30 years ago. It was ingle hulled. No online NAV system. No local pilot on board. Plus drunk captain.Today all tankers can be mandated double hulled. Modern NAV system. Pilot on board. Accompanied by 2 pilots on external tow boats. Going 3-5 km/h. That is very safe.
Hide Replies (2)
JpinBC 8 months ago
I will ignore your straw man arguments in that I can only presume they are not intended to be serious, but with regard to your notions on tankers, unfortunately, the facts do not agree with your opinion.http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2010/09/27/DoubleHullTankers/http://www.ceida.org/prestige/Documentacion/dobrecascopetroleiros.pdfhttp://www.livingoceans.org/media/releases/double-hulled-oil-tankers-do-not-ensure-protection-against-spillsSo, the design and technology of the tankers is not the answer -- particularly in narrow channels filled with rocky obstructions, high winds, strong currents and ships that require huge distances to make course adjustments even under the best of circumstances. Tanker traffic on the west coast of BC is anything but "very safe."
Hide reply (1)
hambone 8 months ago
Has there every been a tanker incident in BC waters? No. That sounds pretty safe.
West49th 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - Comment does not add the to the conversation. Please refer to moderation rules
LindaKemp 8 months ago
We have to realise the value of salmon and the pristine environment that exists there now. To risk the loss of these precious things to enable dirty oil to travel there is ridiculous. Climate change correction dictates we move away from allowing the oil industry to call the shots. It's time to make the changes we need away from oil and towards clean alternatives.
Hide Replies (13)
CanadaFirst 8 months ago
How is the ocean pristine when cities like Victoria dump their raw sewage into it daily?
Hide Replies (3)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
I was wondering when that irrelevant argument would surface.
Hide Replies (2)
West49th 8 months ago
If you think that is irrelevant you have a problem.
MaryInga 8 months ago
It's not irrelevant to the cleaning up of our sociants...but it certainly is to this discussion. I think the principal is called 'two wrongs don't make a right'. But they often appear to do so, by the apologists of the status quo. You can't clean up anything by their logic, because something else is just as bad. My big complaint about our status quo is how sloppy the thinking has become....and how boringly repetitive the one liners are.
Nklatt 8 months ago
There is no such thing as clean alternatives to oil/natural gas! Wind mills are made of steel which takes coal because coal is the only product that can burn hot enough to create steel, solar panels are not much different in its components and what it takes to create them. Lastly, BATTERIES ARE MORE TOXIC TO THE ENVIRONMENT than oil! Please think about how many batteries would be required for these (comparable to 30 car batteries per wind mill) and they only have a working life of 5 years. Acid/Litheum used in batteries can not be recycled or have a process to properly disposed of in a manner that is environmentally responsible. Please look at the bigger picture here. With benefits there are negatives but so called renewable power are just as if not more destructive to the environment than oil/natural gas!
Hide Replies (4)
ScottS2488 8 months ago
Great points you have raised.....it's so easy to condemn fossil fuels and coal without realizing our entire society would collapse without them.
Hide Replies (3)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
We don't need the drama, okay?
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
Your right the PM have that covered!
MaryInga 8 months ago
As it is collapsing with them. Either or arguments are bad arguments...because what they always insist, is that there is no choice. But when there really is no choice we'll be living in a police state. Which may be the only way mega corporations and their extractivist lifestyle is going to be able to dominate reality. But this is all off topic. It's about the crude oil tankers, silly.
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
I personally think the west coast salmon fishery should be banned given it is not sustainable. However, you don't see me out in my kayak trying to stop this industry as I know it is an important source of income for the west coast of Canada. That respect for what matters to Canada as a whole is what I am hoping you can start practicing.
Hide Replies (2)
mtdinyvr 8 months ago
If only it was only the salmon, Chuck !! Entire communities depend on the harvest of shellfish for their food sources and economy.All very sustainable, until when the spill happens !
MaryInga 8 months ago
Support the tanker ban
hambone 8 months ago
Tankers don't affect the Salmon. Over fishing does.
Kathleen 8 months ago
We need to stop enabling and investing in fossil fuel development and infrastructure projects in order to do our part in worldwide efforts to reduce GHG's as needed to combat climate change. Our focus and investment should shift to development and implementation of renewable energy sources and enhancing our energy efficiency as a nation.
Hide Replies (2)
hambone 8 months ago
Who is going to make those investments and where is the money going to come from?
Hide reply (1)
westcoastwild 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to moderation rules
Protector 8 months ago
The government's plan to formalize a crude oil tanker moratorium needs to address the following issues:-The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament and should be a ban.-The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.-The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. My family believes the legislated oil tanker ban needs to be permanent and include ALL of BC's north coast in its entirety!-The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities. An oil tanker ban should be carefully worded so that companies cannot use fuel shipments to coastal communities as a loophole to ship oil for other purposes.- transporting oil by supertankers in inland coastal waters poses an unacceptable risk to the marine environment, to the communities and the businesses that depend upon that environment, and to all Canadians who share the common heritage of healthy oceans.-Canada’s interests in legislating a North Coast oil tanker ban are also economic; including industries such as fishing, aquaculture and tourism which depend on a healthy ocean.
Hide Replies (43)
Fred.vanvogt@gmail.com 8 months ago
I find it interesting that an exemption to transport fuel is OK. However, the producing or transporting of the oil that makes this fuel possible is unsupported. You can't have fuel without the oil.
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
Aren't duplicate postings against the rules of this forum?
Hide Replies (28)
kevansears 8 months ago
I wrote some of the same things regarding this cut and paste form these Sierra Club BC website and my comments were immediately removed and labeled as SPAM with little hope of having them reviewed by this ModeratorHere was their response...Unfortunately the comment below was removed from the Crude oil tanker moratorium forum by our moderators because it breached the site http://www.letstalktransportation.ca/moderation.If you think this is unfair, please reply to this email with an explanation of the reason/s the comment should be reinstated. Your argument will be considered by our moderation team in due course. Please note, however, the decision of the moderation team is final and no further correspondence will be entered into.
Hide Replies (9)
kevansears 8 months ago
Still waiting for the Moderator to remove all this Sierra Club BC CUT AND PASTEHow long do we have to wait???????????
Hide Replies (8)
Lynda Peach 8 months ago
Look, if a bunch of people genuinely agree with the points being made, that is because the points made effectively capture their point of view. Let them have their say.
Hide Replies (3)
kevansears 8 months ago
Really!
Jeanette 8 months ago
What I find offensive is that individuals cutting and pasting have not explored the issue. If they had they would be able to put their knowledge in their own words. it's a submission that the lazy and misinformed use. If they really had researched the topic they would have been able to write their own submission. These canned submissions should all be counted as one and the same.
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
Absolutely, only one point for all this cot and paste!
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
How long do we have to wait for the moderators to reject multiple duplicate postings from fossil fuel proponents?
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
Many at the same time that he/she strips all the Sierra Club BC, CUT AND PASTE!
West49th 8 months ago
Exactly Kevin. They also removed my comments. What a joke this forum is!!!!! Call your MP!
MaryInga 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to moderation rules
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Obviously not, especially if you've read some of the comments from the multinational oil corporations' supporters.
Hide Replies (17)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Hey! I didn't submit that comment multiple times. What gives?
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
I'm a supporter of the reality that Canada has a resource-based economy.
Hide Replies (15)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
That was the last century's reality. Renewable energy is the 21st century reality.
Hide Replies (14)
kevansears 8 months ago
Don't forget to add 50-100 years to you 21st century reality! Just saying...don't see and planes flying around on solar power yet or trains moving people and goods across the nation! Is the PMO flying around in Solar powered planes! NOT
Hide Replies (6)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Guess you missed the story about the solar powered aircraft that circumnavigated the globe this year. It was in all the MSM. I'll bet your grandfather scoffed at the Wright brothers, too.
Hide Replies (4)
kevansears 8 months ago
Hey no problem, just not seeing Air Canada, KLM Virgin flying these things yet!
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
hahahaha - that took over a year!
West49th 8 months ago
One solar powered aircraft dost not an Industry make!
hambone 8 months ago
Solar powered aircraft are a technological dead end. While there may be some uses for this technology, the transportation of large numbers of passengers, at speed, over current range capabilities will not happen with solar powered aircraft. Its a simple case of energy output compared to requirements.
JPierre33 8 months ago
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
A critical read for those who think solar power is the answer to everything. We have a long way to go! https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/the-sun-is-setting-on-solar-power-the-moneys-gone-and-nobodys-asking-any-questions/
Hide Replies (3)
kevansears 8 months ago
Here is a clip from the link above..."In Germany alone, the government have to date handed out about €100 billion in subsidies to renewable energy and even there, the most fervently green country in Europe, they’ve begun to have some serious doubts. It’s a money pit. The promised green jobs haven’t appeared and unemployment in the developed nations continues to rise. On a world-wide basis, the money wasted runs into the billions of dollars.In Germany alone, the government have to date handed out about €100 billion in subsidies to renewable energy and even there, the most fervently green country in Europe, they’ve begun to have some serious doubts. It’s a money pit. The promised green jobs haven’t appeared and unemployment in the developed nations continues to rise. On a world-wide basis, the money wasted runs into the billions of dollars."
Hide reply (1)
West49th 8 months ago
Also the Swiss have just discontinued their Green Initiative that was gobbling up money with no end in sight. The said "too much too soon" and will reassess their plan for going green. Their target was 2050 which proved undoable. Sound familiar?
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Please look at the publication date before reading and forwarding the link to others.
Jeanette 8 months ago
kevansears 8 months ago
the Leap Manifesto 100% Renewables by 2050 demandLooking at the total math for this project Dr. Jacobson calculated that it would cost approximately $1.340 trillion (2013 US dollars) to build the new installations necessary to meet our 2050 goal. Correcting for inflation that comes out to $ 1.4 trillion U.S. dollars. Using today’s currency conversion that comes out to $1.8 trillion Canadian dollars which needs to be spent by 2050.Now assuming we spread the costs evenly between 2016 and 2050 (34 years) that comes out to the low-low-price of $53 billion per year to build that infrastructure.Would love to see where this money would come from if you shut down oil and gas production and transportation in Western Canada...!
MaryInga 8 months ago
I hate to have to say it again, but cut and paste is too common. At least those supporting the ban write it out so i can skim it....nothing but a link to something is using someone else's words....and really, it could be an Exxon sponsored bit of climate change denial for all I know. Thanks but no thanks.
JpinBC 8 months ago
I agree wholeheartedly with Protector, and would add that the inland waters of the Lower Mainland should be protected as well. PM Trudeau's promise was that permits would only be granted in accordance with the permission of the affected localities. "Localities" being the operative term here. Albertans would not be affected by a bitumen spill in Queen Charlotte Sound. The residents of Queen Charlotte Sound are the ones who would be affected by it and they are the ones who must grant their permission. Albertans complain that their livelihood would be impacted by the ban. Not so. The pipeline doesn't exist and Albertans have done quite well without it. They are doing less well now because of the price of oil -- which is dictated by market forces that currently make it unprofitable to to source oil from bitumen. And, as oil sourced from bitumen is the dirtiest oil there is, hardest, most carbon intensive and most expensive to refine, it is likely to be the last oil to be sourced if and when prices rise again. Enhanced oil recovery in the States will come online long before bitumen sourcing is economically viable again, so the Albertans are essentially arguing in support of a an energy source that is barely one step up from coal in a world that is in desperate need of clean energy. Climate change is here whether Alberta likes it or not. Bitumen sourced oil contributes to climate change more than any other source of oil. It must be left in the ground. And it certainly should not be piped to the west coast and pumped onto unwieldy tankers traveling through narrow, treacherous, rock filled channels. We in BC do NOT grant our permission.
Hide Replies (11)
kevansears 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to moderation rules
kevansears 8 months ago
I think you mean (you) don't agree! Don't assume to speak for everyone...(Moderator--is that respectful enough...?)Or are you going to remove this part of the talking too! Just wondering...
Hide Replies (7)
JpinBC 8 months ago
Yes. You're right. I speak for myself, but I also speak for a great many other people here in BC with whom I've spoken regarding this subject, so there is a legitimate "we" in the mix as well. But I don't presume to speak for everyone.
Hide Replies (6)
kevansears 8 months ago
Thank you for making that clear--although, I think the purpose of this "talking is for people to share "their" individual thoughts and not to try to be a voice of many--why not encourage your friends to comment instead of assuming to speak for them--just a thought!
Hide Replies (5)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
You've 'shared your original thoughts' multiple times as well. Pot, meet kettle.
Hide Replies (4)
kevansears 8 months ago
So where are your original thoughts?
Hide Replies (3)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Read on!
Hide Replies (2)
kevansears 8 months ago
Where...Maybe repost here.
Hide reply (1)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
I agree that it's difficult to find particular comments when they're not posted in chronological order. I've put in a request that they do so.
hambone 8 months ago
You do not speak for all British Columbians. Some of us understand basic macro economics and practical realities and don't think Canada overall benefits from NIMBYism.
West49th 8 months ago
I am from BC and I do give my permission and I totally disagree with you.
kevansears 8 months ago
Are you finished with Copy and Paste?
ReynoldR 8 months ago
The most important issue is climate change. We need to keep as much fossil fuel as possible in the ground. Building new infrastructure to ship it abroad is an offense against future generations. Secondly, we need to prevent spills in sensitive waters. We can do better than rip and ship. We can become experts in transitioning to sustainable technology.
Hide Replies (28)
Energy_Exports_are_vital 8 months ago
The most important ? The core issue of the day is unsustainable government finances (and not a climate “crisis” as alleged by civil servants, UN funded experts and tax payers funded think tanks) ! We pay too many civil servants too much money and promise citizens and their tax money custodians too many benefits (free healthcare, free schooling, high pensions, ..) that we do not have enough money left to pay for expensive cleaner energy.Green energy costs money. Only wealthy nations or citizens can afford it. If we tax too much, we don’t have the cash for it. So the CO2 tax is a convenient way to get more taxes from already cash strapped citizens to keep the excessive benefit party going a while longer.
Hide Replies (26)
ReynoldR 8 months ago
The crises we face is serious and if we continue to believe in neoliberal fantasies we're doomed. If we taxed corporations and the rich like we used to our governments would have no shortage of money. (The corporate share of the tax burden has gone down in the last few decades while the share paid by individuals has gone up.) And don't tell me that if we tax corporations too much they'll flee. That's a rationalization for what economists call a "race to the bottom". If they do flee we can replace them with taxpayer owned or worker owned cooperatives.
Hide Replies (15)
hambone 8 months ago
You want to tax corporations right? What corporation with any common sense would come to BC and Canada to do business? With the current regulatory hoops, green agendas, looney politics and First Nations complications, why would they come? In fact they are leaving and they are taking their jobs and tax dollars with them.
Hide Replies (14)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Stop all this fear-mongering. Canada has a much lower corporate tax than the US and many other countries. Where do you think they're going to go? And if they do, are they going to take the tar sands with them?
Hide Replies (8)
hambone 8 months ago
It's not fear mongering. It's a simple truth that BC is becoming an impossibly expensive place to do business. It's one thing to ask businesses to follow proponent processes but when you make it up as you go along like Canada is now doing you introduce risks and costs. Easier to go elsewhere or, as the case with American companies, keep the money at home. Ontario has chased out numerous huge industries such as steel, automotive and other similar manufacturing industries due to misguided and I'll-conceived green energy policies that have made energy prices amongst the highest in the world. In BC various LNG proponents have postponed major investment decisions with Petronas, in particular, criticizing Canadian Government indecision. Mining companies, who already face significant risk, go elsewhere in the face of unresolved and competing land claims. International businesses have choices Virginia, and they can invest their money and jobs where they can meet their goals. That is becoming ridiculously difficult in BC.
kevansears 8 months ago
So you want to build the pipeline and allow tanker traffic in the North...!
Hide Replies (6)
hambone 8 months ago
Yep. Sure do. The region desperately needs the investment and jobs. As does the rest of Canada, which needs the tax revenue.
Hide Replies (5)
kevansears 8 months ago
Agreed!
C. Bruce 8 months ago
I gave this short-sighted comment a thumbs-up in error.
Hide reply (1)
hambone 8 months ago
Short-sighted is pursing policies that deprive Canadians of jobs, wealth and tax revenues with no viable plan to provide an alternative. Governments need tax revenues to provide all the services we Canadians demand. Other nations will be happy to step into the void your ideology is supporting.
abundA 8 months ago
The oil or LNG are not the only ways to create jobs. There is a strong call for greener energy and the training now for this to happen. In a world that is already suffering under the load of mining, drilling and frakking we need to pay attention to the welfare of the land and waters and the wildlife and fisheries are already suffering badly.
Hide reply (1)
hambone 8 months ago
But where is the investment in green energy? Who is going to pony up the money? The BC Government collects millions in carbon taxes. Have they invested a dime in green energy projects in the North? You should focus your lobby efforts on finding out where that money has gone. We are suffering from mining alright. Do you use pots and pans in your kitchen? Do you drive a car? Ride a bike? What is your evidence that tankers will affect fisheries. Last I noticed, it was over-fishing that affected fisheries.
JPierre33 8 months ago
Let them go - good riddance.
Hide Replies (3)
hambone 8 months ago
Good idea. And when a broke Canadian Government sends you a bill for your "free" healthcare or your kids university tuition costs $25 grand a year, remember this conversation.......
Hide Replies (2)
abundA 8 months ago
If the industries were properly taxed, we would have the money for all the needs of our people. Right now, what I see is the government being slaves to the corporations and the rest of us suffering because our money is going to them.
Hide reply (1)
hambone 8 months ago
Industries in Canada pay plenty of taxes. The oil sands, for example, have contributed over $100 Billion to equalization payments across this country. Canada exists in a competitive world environment. Governments need to find the sweet spot between two many taxes and regulations, which will chase business away, and sufficient taxes and regulations to benefit Canadians from the use of our natural resources.
MaryInga 8 months ago
Ethical ones.
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
Agreed. And as well energy companies have renewable energy divisions and have put billions into research and wind farms and tree planting, etc. I suspect those areas will be shuttered, at least for the time being, given the hostile business environment in this country (unlike other countries, where we've seen investment despite low oil prices).
Hide reply (1)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
I totally agree with you this time, Chuck.
JPierre33 8 months ago
"Green energy costs money"but not as much as old technologies are costing us: You are so right and thus ALL subsidies to fossil fuel developments should be curtailed immediately - this then can be applied to 'moving on' away from those holding onto fossilized ideas and technologies.
Hide Replies (5)
Jeanette 8 months ago
MaryInga 8 months ago
I just wish all you business as usual people would think for yourself instead of cutting and pasting downloads for us to read.
Hide Replies (3)
Jeanette 8 months ago
I do think for myself. I have an engineering degree so I understand the ins and outs of energy generation and logistics as well as the economics from analyzing energy companies for banks and the SEC for the past 30 years as well as managing a sub 1000 BOED Alberta oil company for a decade. Don't assume that just because I share a link that I haven't read it and don't fully understand all of the issues. I have spent a great deal of time researching alternative energy sources and whilst the goal is admirable it is unattainable without the means to store the generated electricity and the investment of trillions of dollars over the next few decades. I post links because to just say something without backup in my mind is then only someones opinion. See a link https://achemistinlangley.wordpress.com/2016/08/15/when-anti-pipeline-activist-pretend-that-facts-dont-matter/ If you explore other postings on this site you will also see analysis of the 100%WWS report.
Hide Replies (2)
MaryInga 8 months ago
Thanks. I only posted that response because I was getting bored with all the people accusing folks who followed the Sierra club guidelines...I guess that was the group that posted them, don't know for sure....of cutting and pasting. The joke is that everyone does that when they post a link. Cutting and pasting is done often....because what we cut and paste seems important to us.I still prefer things in people's own words..because as a teacher I know when you can paraphrase, you've understood, but my point was that using other people's wording for arguments we agree with is commonplace.......and only annoying when its done by an opponent.Cheers.
Hide reply (1)
Jeanette 8 months ago
Hi,I understand where you are coming from but I hear and read so many comments regarding Canada's energy industry which are blatant lies because people are believing what they have read without critical thinking about the source and their motives. As you are a teacher I think it would be beneficial for students to research facts posted by NGO environmental groups whose main purpose is to emotionalize issues to get more donations. If you explore the blog posts from Blair King, who calls himself a pragmatic environmentalist (yes a link that I provided earlier) he explains how groups can exaggerate and mislead without impunity whereas people in my occupation , i.e. Professionals are held to a standard where we can be prosecuted for misleading the public. I hope in your class that you empathize critical thinking skills and teach your students to sift through all the miss information to get to the truth. Cheers!
West49th 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to moderation rules
westcoastwild 8 months ago
The Tanker , extracting Tar Sands Bitumen, the big oil narrative must cease to exist. The dialogue should be NO MORE FOSSIL FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE investments. ALL focus must immediately be How do WE STOP fossil fuel investments and turn all energy and commitment to skills retraining for the GREEN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY that comes with a rigorous Earth First Certification Standard. Jobs will come with this focus and commitment. NO TO BIG OIL / BITUMEN PLANET KILLING TANKERS ! The planet is dying from oil and its burnt carbon ,.... HELLO !
Hide reply (1)
hambone 8 months ago
Green Energy projects will come when they are economically viable. Given that Canada is contributing to about 2 percent of the world's emissions, we could all go back to riding horses and heating our homes with wood burning stoves and it would make no material difference to the global warming situation. Until the US, China, India etc make the changes needed, we need to balance our economic interests against making smart investment decisions. In the meantime, why don't you lobby the BC Government to actually spend some of the millions in Carbon taxes on the projects you are advocating for. From what I can tell, they have not built a thing.
AndreaH 8 months ago
Please ban tankers from the North Coast.
ecoteri 8 months ago
I am in full favour if the Government of Canada continues with the Oil Tanker moratorium. The most important issues to me include grave concerns about the safety of the tankers themselves - they often are registered in countries that have very poor safety records. An additional concern is the weather/ocean conditions in northern BC - and climate change is only making abnormal conditions more common. Tankers are not built to withstand rouge waves. A third concern is the narrowness of the fjords that would have to be navigated - as well as the always-reliable case of human error (Note the BC Ferry that got off course and sank - killing two people and endangering the lives of hundreds). A fourth concern is that our country continues to rely on the resource extraction of oil which contributes to global warming just about every step of the way. Another issue is that BC is not an oil-producing province, at least on the coast, so every drop of oil must be transported via train, truck or pipeline. All of these transportation methods have proven problematic, particularly pipelines - all of these methods endanger the countryside through which they travel - all of them ignore the potential consequences of a spill. a drop of oil can contaminate so much water or soil. The Exxon Valdez disaster, so many years ago, should be enough of a cautionary tale.
AndreaH 8 months ago
North Coast tankers must be banned.
Seanro 8 months ago
The most important issue is the only issue: there must exist a complete North Coast tanker ban. I am in favour of a ban as is my community and family.
Penny Brand 8 months ago
I believe that in order for a crude oil tanker moratorium to be effective it must be legislated and the legislation must identify the areas covered by the moratorium specifically Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound. The legislation must not include an expiry date or a sunset clause. It must specifically prohibit ships carrying carrying bulk oil as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments to supply local coastal communities. Most importantly, it must acknowledge that there is no way to mitigate the environmental impact of an oil spill. We have ample evidence from the impact of the the Exxon Valdes oil spill that there is no way to effectively remove the oil. The existing strategies are just bandaids that attempt to contain the oil but are ineffective in removing all of it or protecting marine life from the damage of the oil long term.
gragor 8 months ago
The problem is with size not cargo. The regulations should limit the size of the containers, not the name of the containers. ie Barges, Tankers. etc. As Dilbit is not crude obviously a Crude oil tanker moratorium will not meet the objectives of the ban which is to protect the coast from massive spills. Barges are presently supplying fuel all up and down the coast and should be allowed to continue. They - Like the Nathan E ... have a capacity to cause a lot of damage if they were to crash or leak. Let them be the maximum size allowed for any petroleum product moved on the coast Upper and Lower, be it Crude, semi-modified synthetic or natural or refined.
Kshannon 8 months ago
Keeping BC beautiful for future generations is most important. A permanent crude oil tanker ban needs to happen to protect the environment. The rugged remoteness of our coast, wild weather and the routes along which tankers travel can't give us any hope to be able to clean up a spill.
Hide reply (1)
abundA 8 months ago
Yes, I do agree with this statement.
Peter hillis 8 months ago
The west coast must be protected from potential devastation by introducing a complete ban on large tanker traffic. This should be a permanent ban on the northern coast with no possibility of future governments reversing this ban. The only exception should be small suppy ships servicing remote communities along the Coast but event this should be fazed out as soon as alternative renewable energy sources can be introduced. Not just canada but the world needs to rapidly move away from fossil fuel usage and on to renewables. Don't let anyone tell you renewable energy is too expensive, if you take away the subsidies from fossl fuel industries and start charging them for the carbon pollution then renewables would actually be cheaper .Germany has already reduced their carbon footprint to 20% below 1990 levels and created a booming industry with developing renewable technologies.Meanwhile Canada continues to increase carbon output and Trudeau just approved an LNG project that would become the largest carbon polluter in canada if it is ever built. Canada is really missing the opportunity to be a leader in renewable energy. No No No to any new fossil fuel infrastructure.
coastl 8 months ago
First and foremost the Government should enact the moratorium as an Act of Parliament, so that it can't just be easily reversed by following governments. Repeatedly, it should have no sunset clause. ie it should be made as permanent as a possible. It must also include at least all of Queen Charlotte Sound, Dixon Entrance, and Hecate Strait. It should also exclude all ships carrying any fossil fuel commodity in bulk, with the sole exception of ships supplying to fuel to destinations within the exclusion zone.
ss 8 months ago
No tankers full of any fossil fuels/bitumen should be allowed on the north coast of BC. The Great Bear Rainforest is a National Treasure and should be protected as such.
david#2 8 months ago
Actually implement the ban as a statutory amendment. Define "oil" as “petroleum in any form, including crude oil, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse and refined products (including condensate). Ensure the prohibition would not include the transportation of gasoline, aviation fuel, diesel oil or fuel oil that is intended for use in coastal and island communities in Canada in vessels that are not bulk carriers. Ensure the ban covers the entire British Columbia North Coast, including the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, and Queen Charlotte Sound. Ensure there is no sunset clauses or expiry dates.
gingerbeer 8 months ago
I believe the west coast needs a strong moratorium on crude and refined oil tanker traffic. This permanent ban should should:be legislated by an Act of Parliament;not contain a sunset clause or expiry date;apply to all of the west coast of BC including Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound;completely prohibit ships carrying crude or refined oil in bulk as cargo (while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities).Thank you!Peggy WatkinsVancouver BC
Doug King 8 months ago
Yes, I believe there should be a partial ban on tanker traffic - not a mratorium, but a permanent ban.. I believe the ban should include the entire coast of BC, not just the north coast because the waterways off the southern coast are much narrower and already have more traffic. I believe the ban should include all shipments of diluted bitumen because it is impossible to cleanup after an inevitable spill. I believe the ban should extend to all large shipments of oil which means banning export oil. The ban should only exempt small shipments needed for local use. This may sound extreme, but it is necessary because BC has resources that are worth preserving and need to be protected. We should be doing everything we can to encourage green energy and everything we can to discourage the use of fossil fuels.This flies in the face of everything our governments have been doing for the past century, but times are changing and we know we have to change now or it will be too late.
Greg J. Edwards 8 months ago
I don't understand why Canada is allowing itself to be buffaloed into exporting its oil and gas to foreign markets so rapidly and so thoughtlessly. Exporting Canada's sources of energy is not in our interest over the not so distant future: Canada is projected to have a population of 100 million by the end of this century. Where will our heirs get their energy if we dig it up as quickly as possible at the behest of foreign governments and at the behest of multi-national corporations? The rush to export our oil and gas is being orchestrated by those outside Canada, those who have no interest in looking after Canada's long-term needs.Yours truly,Greg J. Edwards5078 Walker AvenueDelta BC V4M 1A7604-948-5149
W&J 8 months ago
Consider what s best for the Canadian economy with use of the latest technologies i.e. double hulled tankers. There currently are existing tankers on the west coast. What about the upcoming LNG plant, how will that be shipped. We need to get our oil and gas to export. This will be a benefit to the Canadian economy.
jl.fournier91 8 months ago
I am a BC resident, and I value the natural beauty and resources of our coast above the oil industry's ability to ship bitumen offshore. As such, I fully support a ban on tankers off our shores.A strong oil tanker moratorium must be based on thes key principles:- It must be legislated by an Act of Parliament.- It must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.- It must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.- It must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying crude or refined oil in bulk as cargo, including in particular persistent oil, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.Cut and paste is not an abuse of process. Not everyone has the time to research all the details. I understand enough to know the risks are too great to ignore.
Zule 8 months ago
I am a BC resident, and I value the natural beauty and resources of our coast above the oil industry's ability to ship bitumen offshore. As such, I fully support a ban on tankers off our shores.A strong oil tanker moratorium must be based on thes key principles:- It must be legislated by an Act of Parliament.- It must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.- It must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.- It must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying crude or refined oil in bulk as cargo, including in particular persistent oil, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.Cut and paste is not an abuse of process. Not everyone has the time to research all the details. I understand enough to know the risks are too great to ignore.
Freespeaker 8 months ago
The problem with discussion forums such as this one is that they are flooded by members of organizations like the WWF for example. This cut and paste campaign on their part should be removed as it's an abuse of the purpose of this discussion which makes it a useless tool for the government to assess how Canadians really think. Why is there not an actual ballot that asks Canadians if they support the moratorium and a comment box to explain why or why not? This whole discussion on here is just a free for all to misuse the site and mistreat commenters with opposing view with one another.
Hide Replies (3)
West49th 8 months ago
Moderator why isn't there a ballot? I thought it was going to be a survey and I could give my opinion; instead this site is flooded by a concerted campaign to support the moratorium. This is very wrong.
MaryInga 8 months ago
When you form government do it how y ou like....but on this site the main problems I see is with people changing the topic, or insulting flks with different views, And while on the topic of cut and paste....the people using the points provided by organizations they belong to seem to have as much right to do so, as do the people opposed to the points these organizations have provided....to repeat over and over their objections to 'cut and paste'Do they really think we don't know that is a set objection of the oil and gas industry. Do they imagine those of us concerned with protecting our coastline haven't seen their half truths and bits of illogic before???? Come on now. We watch CBC.
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
Liberal controlled CBC
Hope 8 months ago
I am not certain that the submission I am attempting to download to this site will succeed as I'm guessing the site is overloaded so will put my 2 cents worth here.....The Trudeau Liberal government ran on a platform of green energy alternatives and needs to honour their promises to protect our land, rivers, shorelines and coastal waters from fossil fuel pollution.All of British Columbia’s coastline must be protected from the risks that oil tankers pose to the ocean, shoreline and sea life. Look at the science; climate change is at the point now that only reducing greenhouse gas, not carbon taxes in exchange for pipelines, will start to mitigate its effects. The climate change impacts of shipping dilbit to be refined elsewhere and then shipped again is unacceptable. What we need desperately is clean, sustainable energy which is a enormous economic opportunity waiting to happen. I support the West Coast Environmental Law submissions which I have copied below. I trust their research and find the points are common sense.• The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament.• The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.• The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.• The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.
AlexisS 8 months ago
I strongly support the government's plan to formalize a crude oil tanker moratorium on the north BC coast. I agree with the recommendations put forward by groups such as West Coast Environmental Law and others, who have put a lot of time and effort into assessing and working toward solutions for the environmental and community risks associated with tankers in this region. I also believe that if the responses from many people in this discussion reflect the same key points and concerns, they should not be discounted just because they use the same terms repeatedly – instead they should be thoughtfully considered as they demonstrate broad public support for these recommendations. That said, I agree the most important elements of the tanker ban include legislating the moratorium by an Act of Parliament; ensuring that it's permanent (no expiration); allowing for the transport of necessary fuel for coastal communities but comprehensively prohibiting tankers carrying oil as bulk cargo; and ensuring that the ban applies at a minimum to the areas set out in the Prime Minister's Mandate Letter to the Minister of Fisheries (Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound).Thank you for considering these comments.
arhandford 8 months ago
Protecting the environment, especially this particular environment, is the most important issue. The area is simply unsuitable for tankers. Exploring economic opportunities that have little or no impact on this environment, and supporting economic activities which celebrate and enhance northern communities is the second most important set of issues.
David G McRae 8 months ago
My wife and I fully support P.M. Trudeau's move to fully enshrine a legislated oil tanker ban on BC's North West Coast as spelled out in his mandate letter to his Minister of Transport, Minister of Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. A permanent oil tanker ban will go a long way in protecting the myriad of Ecological Reserves and rocky islets found here from irreparable damage from unrecoverable oil spills. This enshrined legislation will also provide an additional layer of protection for the shores and river estuaries of the inland channels and waterways including the Great Bear Rain forest. A permanent oil tanker ban would help protect the life stiles of those who depend on a healthy coast line, man and animal alike. As the UBC study showed, there are thousands of jobs and many millions of dollars at stake here. All could be wiped out with just one storm inflicted breach of a oil bearing VLCC on one of the many rocky islets or shores.Since the 1970s there have been many attempts at a legislated oil tanker ban, all were unsuccessful. The future of a healthy coast is dependent on this latest attempt to succeed. The boundary area of the ban should be well defined with no ambiguity.The legislation should contain wording that would not allow others to cancel it or to do an end run around it. Above all, the legislation should contain wording that prevents foreign nations or corporations from dictating to us (Canadians) what we can have or not have in legislation.We look forward to a quick finalization of your new legislation on this very important subject.Dave and Lucy McRae
JAMES KLASSEN 8 months ago
As a 40+ year resident of BC I have this to say.I am rather disheartened to see an obvious campaign on this site from an outside party to convince others that there is no way to mitigate risk. There is a broad assumption that oil tankers have been responsible for spills on the west coast of BC.This is completely untrue… in actual fact the largest spill of oil on the West Coast of British Columbia has been the sinking of BC Ferries "Queen of the North in 2006"And No one is calling for a BC Ferries ban.We have 3 major ports on the Westcoast of BC and there is a reason these ports are used - they are proven safe and navigable for ocean going vessels. Safer than the St.Laurence.So here's my biggest issues with a ban on "Oil Tankers" on BC's North Coast.the proposed ban/moratorium is:- set against exports - not imports- the ban is for the Westcoast but does not apply to the East Coast - this is regional politics for a Federal issue and for that I cry foul - if you are going to do one and not make the move unilaterally- it is industry specific (even though as we have seen the biggest spill has been a Ferry not a Tanker)- Failure to take into account current Canadian acts practice and personnel. Canada -unlike almost any country in the world has 3 Oceans with many capable and experienced Marine Engineers.The rules should apply federally and cover all traffic - but specifically import traffic. If there are risk or danger areas they should be highlighted. Many of the people that I have seen comment aren't familiar with the current acts in place for general freighter traffic.They don't understand the role of Canadian Pilotage in the Canadian Shipping Act, The Pacific Pilotage Act, They have no idea how difficult and the study required to be certified and licensed pilot.They don’t understand that more Canadian Inspectors have been hired for vessel inspections for incoming ships.They don’t understand we have an aerial surveillance program that can detect a 1 litre oil spill from the air. And that in 2 years they tracked over 250,000 vessels.If anything I would see the discussion leaning to have fees and permits added to generate direct revenue paying for increased Coast Guard, Spill Response, surveillance and inspections. This would not only serve to increase safety and pay for it – but also build our country on the dime of those who use our waters for business. Registered Canadian Vessels being discounted and foreign vessels at a higher fee – unilaterally.Please remember that Federal Action must be done “Federally” and not pit one region against another. As a Canadian – and a British Columbian I hope that safety, responsibility and Canadian professionalism win the day. Not fear, political “touch words”, or a season of “irrational hype.”Thanks for listeningJames Klassen, BC Resident
Hide Replies (12)
kevansears 8 months ago
Excellent!
Alfor99 8 months ago
Thank-you James, Al Stewart.
GEORGINA 8 months ago
Excellent! Fear mongers should be given the credence they deserve, none if they have no expertise in the field. Tankers are far safer than many of the small boats and oil barges already being towed along the inside passage. If tankers are to be banned then it needs to be done on both coasts. Mind you a ban on the north coast means more traffic for the Juan de Fuca and Salish sea into Vancouver. The oil will come either by pipeline or by rail.
Hide reply (1)
Timdb 8 months ago
Not to mention cruise ships. Some now carry bunker fuel that's equivalent to the oil carried by some small oil tankers.
Jskventures 8 months ago
Thank you James for putting into words what many of us think. It is appreciated
hambone 8 months ago
Very well said. Finally some well informed common sense comments.
Jeanette 8 months ago
Well said, James
Brenda Mark 8 months ago
You make the point that the largest oil spill reported on the west coast of BC was a ferry in 2006. I might add, due to human error. This may not count for you because it was in American waters further north in Prince William Sound in Alaska, on the same coast. In 1989, again due to human error, the Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred, covering 11,000 square miles of ocean and impacting 1300 miles of coastline. Lowest estimates are 25 million gallons of oil, of which only 10% was completely cleaned up.
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
Beautifully stated. Thank you James!
West49th 8 months ago
Perhaps we could ban ferries because one sank. Do you agree?
West49th 8 months ago
Excellent article and so well written with true facts. So refreshing. Thank you James.
MaryInga 8 months ago
No. But there's some serious thought and positive suggestions put into this response....as such, it is worthy of consideration.
Elizabeth Savage 8 months ago
Immediately stop all further extortion of oil, coal or gas.
Hide Replies (8)
kevansears 8 months ago
And you don't use or consume any products related to oil production...
Hide Replies (7)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
I see that the pro-pipeline/tanker arguments are weakening.
Hide Replies (6)
kevansears 8 months ago
How is that...?
Hide Replies (5)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
When you have to resort to accusing people of being hypocrites because they are being forced by the oil industry and the government to use fossil fuels, I consider that to be a weak argument.
Hide Replies (4)
kevansears 8 months ago
But the end user has a choice--and to have a affective voice is best when consumers stop consuming--those who provide the products will take notice when their revenue stream stops producing $$$$$$
Hide Replies (2)
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
Exactly kevansears, the simple laws of supply and demand rule.
MaryInga 8 months ago
Please try to temper your argument, not withdraw it.Please refer to moderation rules
West49th 8 months ago
That is laughable.
kevansears 8 months ago
Hey Moderator...If you search for these words guess how many time they come up...?an Act of Parliament (41x)sunset clause (40x) or expiry date (35x)Hecate Strait (43x)Don't you think that maybe these comments should be removed?
Hide Replies (2)
West49th 8 months ago
Thank you Kevin. The moderator must be a ..... Liberal?
MaryInga 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - failed to respect the comment --other users. Please refer to moderation rules
Lorraine Fralin 8 months ago
I firmly believe that a moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic must be stopped immediately and forever for the risk to the marine and land life is far to critical. Crude oil or Bitumen sinks and suffocates what it covers and can not be removed, ever! Our coast along BC is far to breathtaking and rich in marine life to be experimented with and used to transport this product now or anytime in the future. You must say NO and put an end to this project once and for all!!
Hide Replies (11)
Sue Martin 8 months ago
I think Lorraine meant her first sentence to read "I firmly believe that crude oil tanker traffic must be stopped immediatel and forever etc. This seems to be clear from what she goes on to say.Therefore I agree with her wholeheartedly.
Energy_Exports_are_vital 8 months ago
Only wealthy nations can afford green energy. Stopping tankers makes us all poorer.
Hide Replies (8)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Canada is a very wealthy country. Don't let that government deficit fool you.
Hide Replies (6)
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
Not without the ability to sell its natural resources it isn't.
kevansears 8 months ago
I guess you were not around when his dad was PM, we had a wrecked economy from his runaway spending and interest rates that absolutely crippled our country, care to read..."In 1981-82, Canada plunged into recession, the worst since World War II. Trudeau's already big deficits exploded to a point that Canada's lenders worried about default.Trudeau's Conservative successor Brian Mulroney balanced Canada's operating budget after 1984. But to squeeze out Trudeau-era inflation, the Bank of Canada had raised real interest rates very high. Mulroney could not keep up with the debt payments. The debt compounded, the deficits grew, the Bank hiked rates again -- and Canada toppled into an even worse recession in 1992. Trudeau's next successors, Liberals this time, squeezed even tighter, raising taxes, and leaving Canadians through the 1990s working harder and harder with no real increase in their standard of living.Do Canadians understand how many of their difficulties of the 1990s originated in the 1970s? They should.To repay Trudeau's debt, federal governments reduced transfers to provinces. Provinces restrained spending. And these restraints had real consequences for real people: more months in pain for heart patients, more months of immobility for patients awaiting hip replacements.If Canada's health system delivers better results today than 15 years ago, it's not because it operates more efficiently. Canada's health system delivers better results because the reduction of Trudeau's debt burden has freed more funds for healthcare spending.Pierre Trudeau was a spending fool."http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-frum/was-trudeau-a-disaster-fo_b_985517.html
Hide Replies (4)
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
I was around then, although I was a child. My parents sent through hell trying to pay their mortgage when interest rates sky-rocketed to 18%. Meanwhile wage and price controls meant that wages didn't increase to help pay for the bloated mortgage payments. Many lost their homes. It took the two successive governments to get the country out of that mess. I fear we are heading in the same direction (crushing debt, destroying the largest source of federal income, etc). I hope I'm wrong but the signs all point in that direction.
Hide Replies (3)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
The Pierre Trudeau government wasn't all bad. At least he proposed a national energy plan that would have been good for Canada had Big Oil not been so greedy.
Hide Replies (2)
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
On this we agree Virginia. He was trying to get Canada to energy independence and I wish that we had that today.
Hide reply (1)
Jeanette 8 months ago
Disagree: The NEP wasn't really about increasing Canadian ownership (that was a smokescreen), it was about adding additional taxes including a tax on revenue (PGRT). Tell me another industry in Canada that was taxed on revenue?"National Post journalist Jen Gerson would state that "the NEP was considered by Albertans to be among the most unfair federal policies ever implemented. Scholars calculated the program cost Alberta between $50 and $100 billion."[21]"
MaryInga 8 months ago
Wow. Only petro states are wealthy???? And risking our coastlines will make green energy readily available? Too much digging the same hole deeper may be asbad for the intellect as it has proven for the environment.
West49th 8 months ago
YOur post does not make sense!
Sue Martin 8 months ago
I find this whole webpage very frustrating. I can 't see how it can help those in power to know anything other than that some people are for and some against the moratorium or ban on tankers. To a great extent the same people are just saying the same thing over and over again. It would have been more useful to have every person just give his/her opinion once. Other people's responses are generally not helpful but Re often rather just put-downs of those whose opinions are different from their own.Could there not be a limit on the number of times someone can make a comment?And as someone pointed out, only a limited percentage of the population will use a forum like this, whether because they don't have computers or because they don't know about it.So I won't come back.
Hide Replies (14)
kevansears 8 months ago
Yes this is a joke--this type of "talking" is not representative of the GOOD PEOPLE OF CANADA! and only gets tangled up with so much copy and paste from special interest groups like the Sierra Club BC!
Hide Replies (13)
Sue Martin 8 months ago
So I came back once. The Sierra Club represents the views of thousands of thinking people. They are no more a special interest group than you and those who think like you. So what if people prefer to use their coherent summary of the situation? At least it is clear and well formulated. Some of the posts on this forum make no sense at all - I can't even figure out what the writer intended.And again you are using put-downs - "The good people of Canada" include all of us, not just those with your views. Some of us happen to believe that preserving the planet is the first thing we have to do in order to have a healthy economy. If the environment is destroyed, there will be few prospects for our grandchildren. And more and more people are realizing that we have to move from fossil fuels to methods that are kinder to the natural environment. Yes, we will quite likely have to tighten our belts to achieve this.That's it for me. This time I won't come back.
Hide Replies (12)
kevansears 8 months ago
Since you aren't coming back, and your preference is to copy and paste, it would be fair to assume that this really is not that important to you! Too bad...Estimate (2016) BC population, 4,720,932, so how is this even close to being "representative of the GOOD PEOPLE OF (BC) CANADA...? This is an elitist minority group which a high percentage who seem to only know how to copy and paste from the Sierra Club BC! (AND THEY ARE A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP REPRESENTING A VERY SMALL MINORITY OF THE GREATER POPULATION)
Hide Replies (6)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment contained bad language. Please refer to moderation rules
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
I wonder what the moderators consider 'bad language'. If it's the word 'assume', it seems to be acceptable when others use it. BTW, I read in the guidelines that yelling (all upper case letters) is unacceptable as well.
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
Some of my posts have been "yelling" and are still up--go figure!
MaryInga 8 months ago
You may be amusing.....but you are also off topic. The topic is the tanker ban. This silly claim that organizations like the Sierra Club are special interests is an old ploy of the right wing....it goes back to Maggie thatcher. Fact is, Big Oil is a special interest that makes the Sierra Club, or the Heart and Stroke foundation for that matter, small potatoes. Do you actually think people on this site don't know the special interests you are trolling this ste for?The reality remains...many of us are sharing our perspective, and our knowledge on this site because of something larger than 'Special Interest" spin. We speak for the coast, the northwest coast of a Canada that believes it belongs to us all.....whether or not we live there.And that it belongs to the indefinite future...not just to extractivists and their big corporations. Seeing the earth as a resource base for special interest wealth creators, is the SPECIAL INTERESTS we are questioning.Try to stay with the topic, and not get off on tangents that can easily dissolve behind you
Hide Replies (2)
kevansears 8 months ago
It is very easy to follow the backing of these groups and yes they are special-agenda driven--shut down the completion, which is on topic--considering that this is all about that! Yes oil companies do come with an agenda too, however, in a Canadian-Responsible way they are creating huge revenues in our country that are greatly beneficial to everyone--I would think, including yourself.
Hide reply (1)
kildawr 8 months ago
The idea of Canada having an viable economy based on fossil fuels doesn't wash because our depleting reserves can't compete with the middle east. By contrast the renewables wind, solar, and geothermal can create a power supply that is cheaper, healthier and is employing more people in the USA than all of coal, oil and "fracgas". It is also infinitely sustainable at energy use rates that can raise the standard of living for most of the planet without the pollution problems (including spills) associated with fossil fuels. Why in the world (expletives omitted) would anyone with more than a half a brain not want to see the the "100% Transition" to a Renewable Energy "Electric Powered Economy/Society" ASAP. Lets not throw away our money subsidizing a sector that will have stranded assets galore in the near future, when we could be carving a niche in the world of the future by subsidizing renewables. All the argument over pipelines, energy inefficient LNG and yes even "fracgas" and tankers would just disappear if enough of us understand that the next phase of the industrial revolution is upon us and support with our voices and vote with our purchasing $ the LEAP to renewables as the source of our society's energy supply.Regards,Richard Kildaw P.Eng.
Energy_Exports_are_vital 8 months ago
Does belt tightening apply to civil servants, too, or just for ordinary tax payers? How about a salary cut of 25-30% as that would be the result of a declining economy or lower tax base if we eliminate resouyrce based economies in Canada ? Or how about a 50% reduction in welfare cheques to first "nations" that oppose these projects. Money doesn't grow on trees, you know.
West49th 8 months ago
Thank you for not coming back.
Hide Replies (2)
MaryInga 8 months ago
And thank you for being so polished in your opinions that you are often removed by the moderators. I live in hope that whoever the government hires to read and summarize this material, has a sense of humour, and some knowedge of the actual topic under consideration.
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
Moderators with a liberal agenda!
MaryInga 8 months ago
Don't be put off by Kevin. He's doing the best that he can, and in his way, may well be serving the common good. And thanks for taking the time to engage in democracy. It's enlightening is it not? Some of the 'drill baby drill' crowd even go so far as to warn our new government of the dangers of 'listening to the people' I think its interesting how in the end, we reveal ourselves, and our values.....good people must not leave the discussionWhat would be left is too farcical at present.
Pat Nichols 8 months ago
".. the most important issues"? A list of only some which come to mind: (a) Your Children's Future on our beautiful Planet, the Blue Dot; (b) Preserving the pristine ENVIRONMENT [ancient Haida Gwaii, The Great Bear Rainforest, the Spirit Bears, the sacred wild salmon, the Eagles, the whales,] that people around the world LOVE about Canada, including the Royals who recently toured here & that Christy Clark bragged about in Victoria [I was in the audience]; (c) Preserving & protecting the LIVELIHOODS of everyone on the coast [e.g. fisher people, tourism of all sorts, restaurants, hotels, whale watching], the loss of which would amount to billions of dollars and create incalculable social upheaval. (d) Respecting & honouring the rights and historical lifestyles of Canada's FIRST NATIONS people of this province and this coast; (e) The violent WEATHER & storms off our B.C. coast, e.g. 25 foot+ waves in the shallow Hecate Strait and elsewhere, even in summer and often in winter; (f) The strong CURRENTS which have been proven to carry items from up-coast, down the east side of Vancouver Island all the way around to Tofino. (h) The absolute INABILITY of any group or corporation to CLEAN UP even a portion of a spill on our wild, cold water ocean, the Exxon Valdez, pilot-error disaster being just one case in point; (i) The BROKEN HEARTS that would result if there was any spill here on this beautiful coast which you are well familiar with. With increased tanker traffic, we have all heard the expression, "It is not IF, it's WHEN there will be an accident". We all beg you to BE THE CHANGE which is now so desperately needed in our country, on our planet. We no longer have TIME to let decisions be driven by the $$$ that has been ruling all of us. The people, the creatures, the environment need massive change and you have the POWER to effect change. Please do not fail us.
heathern 8 months ago
We must 1) protect the critically important marine environment and 2) drastically reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Banning tankers from our coast supports both of these goals, which are necessary if we want to ensure an inhabitable planet for future generations. No amount of money or economy will be able to save us if we have no food or clean water! We must take immediate, aggressive action regardless of financial outcomes.
Sharonpn 8 months ago
While drafting the oil tanker moratorium into legislation, the Government must not contrive to alter the wording in order to allow exports of bitumen or other oil products
Hide Replies (2)
West49th 8 months ago
There is no consensus for a moratorium.
Hide reply (1)
MaryInga 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment does not add to the conversation. . Please refer to moderation rules
water 8 months ago
I support an oil tanker moratorium on the North and Central Coasts of British Columbia in perpetuity.I support everything the WCELA has said about this already. I would go a few steps further.NOT VOLUNTARY : The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament. NOT TIME-LIMITED : The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.200-MILE LIMIT: The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. It should be extended to the 200-mile EEZ limit and apply to tankers of ALL nationalities, including U.S. vessels transiting between ALASKA and the continental U.S.A.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.NO FOREIGN CONTROL : This legislation is exempt from Investor Stated Dispute resolution mechanisms. Therefore no multi-national or foreign government may over-turn or apply legal suit to overturn this legislation via clauses embedded in "free trade deals" or international business deals.NO BITUMEN in Canadian Waters - No port may handle and no vessels may transport bitumen (or diluted bitumen) within the 200-mile EEZ of Canadian Waters, primarily because there is no clean-up possible in the event of a spill, and secondly because shipping raw materials out of Canada destroys our oil workers jobs and livelihood. Bitumen mined and delivered to the coast must therefore be refined to higher grade oils with specific densities that float in seawater, and better yet, in freshwater (since they are could contaminate watersheds when shipped to the coast).
Hide Replies (12)
kevansears 8 months ago
Are you going to live in a Teepee, walk everywhere and use an open wood fire for cooking and warmth...
Hide Replies (4)
water 8 months ago
That won't be necessary. I hope. There's a lot of other energy sources that are coming online, if we can divest ourselves of our fossil fuel addiction before we burn the planet up. But... things are going to have to get ... a LOT 'simpler' ... real soon ... for all of us ... if we want to keep planetary heating within 2 degree rise. Which means -- NO NEW FOSSIL FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE. Meanwhile, maybe i'll go dig out my tent and dust off my camp stove... :-)
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
Good sense of humour--I'll go dust mine off too!
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Why would we have to do that when we have so many alternative sources of renewable energy?
Hide reply (1)
MaryInga 8 months ago
For the sake of the debate. Extremists only see two answsers to everything. I blame the school system myself and I was part of it. Either -or.....America, love it or leave it. The rhetoric of domination....either see it my way, or freeze to death in the dark.
Energy_Exports_are_vital 8 months ago
Why is that. Energy exports and vital for our tax base. Clean energy has two drawbacks: it costs more and it doe not provide enough taxes and employment. Modern ships are very safe if properly regulated. No one wants an oil spill. Modern double hulled tankers with modern NAV systems and pilots going 5km/h do not sink.
Hide Replies (4)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Let's hear your expertise on clean energy's drawbacks. Seriously. And multiple hulled tankers are quite capable of sinking if they hit a huge jagged rock in Douglas Channel.
Hide Replies (3)
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
Google "graphite rain" for starters to see the downside of e-car battery production.Then read this for the destruction of rare earth mineral mining (required for renewal energy): http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earthAnd a multitude of solar power company bankruptcies once govt subsidies run out.There is so much info on the drawbacks of renewable energy. I suspect you would rather dream than look at the realities of our viable energy choices (at present anyway).
Hide reply (1)
MaryInga 8 months ago
Well hey Chuck....while we're at it, lets count up the number of fossil fuel companies that are going to go bankrupt when government subsidies cease. Seriously, an industry approaching the sunset of its life should know about failure. Deep Horizon comes to mind....Kalamazoo comes to mind....but oil and gas have had well over 100 years to build the infrastructure that suppresses its screw ups....or minimizes them with phrases like 'risk management'Renewable energy, in contrast, is in it's infancy. There are so many things yet to discover, so many improvments yet to be made as we implement. Oil isn't King any longer...it's time to acknowledge the source of all energy on Earth. The Sun.
West49th 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect the views of other users. Please refer to moderation rules
hambone 8 months ago
Better start carving some wooden bowls, knives , forks and spoons to eat with as well......
Hide reply (1)
MaryInga 8 months ago
Here we go again. The rhetoric of everything: BIG OIL...or utter impoverishment. Ever heart of pottery hambone?
alewis 8 months ago
To minimize incidental or accidental release of oil, ships transporting crude oil as a cargo should not be permitted in areas of navigational hazards, areas of concern to First Nations, areas continuously used by marine mammals or containing bird nesting sites, important commercial fishing areas, and recognized marine and terrestrial conservation areas.
Hide Replies (9)
Energy_Exports_are_vital 8 months ago
Why is that? Energy exports and vital for our tax base. Clean energy has two drawbacks: it costs more and it doe not provide enough taxes and employment. Modern ships are very safe if properly regulated. No one wants an oil spill. Modern double hulled tankers with modern NAV systems and pilots going 5km/h do not sink nor do they hit whales nor do they interfere with fishing. I also disagree with the term First Nations. Call them First Tribes. Or first "nations". Or First Communities. Nations have enforceable borders, self-sustaining economies, self-funding healthcare, an army and police force. Our first so called "nations" have none of this !
Hide Replies (7)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Where is your proof that clean energy costs more than fossil fuel energy? The only expensive 'so-called clean energy' project is the unnecessary mega-dam that the BC government is trying to push to the 'point of no return' simply to satisfy the Premier's ego.
Hide Replies (6)
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
One word: Ontario
Hide Replies (4)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
You need more proof than that. Ontario's screw-up is only one in a million successful renewable energy projects.
Hide Replies (3)
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
I've provided this info on solar, e-car batteries, etc. in replies to your other comments. Please check them out.
Hide reply (1)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Yes, I checked them out, but as I have previously stated, most of that info is out of date.
MaryInga 8 months ago
I'm amazed how easily we can be distracted from the issue. If we are off and running with the assumption that Ontario's green energy initiatives have failed....why not take a wild digression into pipeline spills, or the amount of money oil companies, CAPP, and verious governments have spent advertising for mega projects that may well be 'too expensive' and unnecessary, given the rapid progress being made on renewables world wide.All interesting discussions, don't get me wrong, but beside the point. Changing the topic seems to be more useful to some then adressing the actual issue.
West49th 8 months ago
Do you know how many Site C Dams it would take to replace the loss of oil and gas for our energy needs. I read as many as 13.
MaryInga 8 months ago
How could anyone not agree? Oh I forgot. If you are a fossil fuel apologist, none of the above matters a jot. First Nations? Let them move to cities and assimilate. Marine animals? Who needs whales now we have oil (of course, the degree the sea needs them is discussed in books like Feral, by George Mombiot, but we all know any infor from anywhere other than the ministry of oil is propoganda)? Who cares for nesting birds, except a few middle age bird watchers? And important fishing areas? Long past collapse anyway...fish farms will replace them. Marine and terrestrial conservation areas? What in the name of radical marxist environmentalism, are you talking about?The devil's excrement, I think one south american politician called oil...and for those who depend on it, everything else becomes incidental. We should all find that scary
Martin V 8 months ago
I would like to see a legislated, and permanent, oil tanker ban (bulk crude oil and all related light and heavy bulk transport oil products including bitumen, dilbit, and condensate) that includes at a minimum, all of the Douglas Channel, Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound, and extends down the coast to include waters off the "Great Bear Rainforest", and waters to east of Vancouver Island.Please proceed at the quickest pace that is possible to put in place this oil tanker ban, as was promised by the Liberal Party of Canada.Oil pipelines, oil refineries and crude oil tankers do not belong on or near the north and central BC coast and the coastal mountains and rivers. The risks of spill are too great, and there is no ability to clean up more than a fraction of a spill should it occur, even with the best of clean up technology.Thank You,Martin V and Jennifer C
Hide reply (1)
kildawr 8 months ago
You are so right on with your analysis and request. Thanks for writing my inputRichard Kildaw
Natalie 8 months ago
I would like to see a legislated, and permanent, oil tanker (bulk crude oil) moratorium that includes at a minimum, all of Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound.I believe that the decision making process needs to taking into account ALL current tanker traffic and it's total and potential impact (in case of accidents and spills) on the marine environment, routing and safety. We already have a high volume of traffic on these waters and with each passing ship food sources that coastal communities depend on, along with the marine resources used by other industries are put at risk.
Sporque 8 months ago
I am a BC resident, and I value the natural beauty and resources of our coast above the oil industry's ability to ship bitumen offshore. As such, I fully support a ban on tankers off our shores.A strong oil tanker moratorium must be based on thes key principles:- It must be legislated by an Act of Parliament.- It must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.- It must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.- It must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying crude or refined oil in bulk as cargo, including in particular persistent oil, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.Yes, some of the above is cut-and-paste, but I am a real person who has read every sentence and I agree with every word.
Hide Replies (11)
kevansears 8 months ago
Great that you value BC's natural beauty BUT why not post your "original thoughts" and "HAVE YOUR SAY" rather than cut and paste what the Sierra Club BC wants you to say!
Hide Replies (8)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Your 'original thoughts' have been posted here multiple times as well. What's your problem?
Hide Replies (6)
kevansears 8 months ago
Really no problem, if the moderator would remove all of the (edited) duplicated postsSame rules across the board is good for me, how about you?
Hide Replies (5)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Looks to me like we've both had our comments deleted because we don't respect each other's point of view. So be it.
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
I'm fine, we do come from different perspectives--I have no problem respecting you arguments--sorry if I have come across in a way that is not respectful.Your right the Moderator needs to treat all posts equally and that doesn't seem to be happening!
mtdinyvr 8 months ago
Kevansears, you've had your say. Over and over and over and over and over ... you are very repetitive. You might as well cut and paste yourself. Dont you have anything better to do ? So what if someone cuts and pastes info from the Sierra Club ? Some people might not have the time or the know how to write their own remarks, but at least they are taking the time to make their feelings on the subject known !!!!!!!!!! And that is good !
Hide Replies (2)
kevansears 8 months ago
So though all those people--the Sierra Club gets to have an unbalanced say, far too easily--if this is such an "earth-shattering reality then we should hold a high standard that excludes the free-willy approach to cut and paste!Take the time to think about and write about this!
Hide reply (1)
mtdinyvr 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to moderation rules
MaryInga 8 months ago
Your example may explain part of the simplicity of following a set rubric. The topic is the tankers and if we support a ban. For those of us who do, we agree with the research the Sierra club has done, and value the help they give us in being concise and clear. their summation is concise and clear. Much of what the opponents are posting is silly, off topic, rude, in denial of climate change....or based on preserving the status quo.You may call that thinking for yourself if you like....but logic also has a name for much of it. Red herrings. Which have, I assure you, nothing to do with the fishing industry.
Nklatt 8 months ago
You can not say that oil tankers are banned but those hauling the refined product of that oil is allowed to use the passages. That is completely redundant! You can't have your cake and eat it too! Oh and since the oil bitumen Would require an upgrader at the port, your costs for the required fuel you would want to be shipped back through those passages would drastically decrease!
West49th 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to moderation rules
TrueEnvironmentalist 8 months ago
I believe that crude and refined oil tanker traffic on the West Coast should be allowed to the same extent as on the East Coast, with the same safeguards in place. These safeguards may need to be updated, removing any "grandfathering" exemptions for older tankers. There are many other hazardous products traveling by ship both in and out of West Coast ports. Oil should not be treated differently. It seems that Climate Change has become the new religion for extremists and fundamentalists. I see a lot of hypocrisy among this group. Many own or rent SUVs instead of cars, which emit more GHGs and pollutants. Many also utilize air travel, which not only emits the highest amount of GHGs and pollutants per passenger per hour, but also deposits those pollutants in the upper atmosphere where they do the most harm. I can already hear the retorts about "per mile traveled" but the fact is you can travel much further and pollute a lot faster than any other mode of transportation. Much of this travel, especially for academics, politicians, and government employees is unnecessary as the "business" portion of the trip could be accomplished with the modern technologies of video conferencing. Training courses, conferences, and meetings that are often held in exotic or resort locations are a thinly disguised effort to get taxpayers to pay for a bit of a holiday. Bottom line: show by example, don't preach.
cwrench 8 months ago
The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an act of parliament. There have been at least six private members bills in the past eight years that sought to formalize the Pacific north coast oil tanker moratorium in the form of a legislative prohibition under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (“CSA 2001”) : Bill C-571 (2008 – MP Catherine Bell); Bill C-458 (2009 – MP Don Davies); Bill C-606 (2010 – MP Joyce Murray); Bill C-211 (2011 – MP Fin Donnelly); Bill C-437 (2012 – MP Joyce Murray); and Bill C-628 (2014 – MP Nathan Cullen). As with a legislative prohibition, the legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date. The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.
Hide Replies (11)
kevansears 8 months ago
COPY AND PASTE...TRY WRITING SOMETHING OF YOUR OWN!
Hide Replies (10)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
What's the modern equivalent of the broken record?
Hide Replies (7)
kevansears 8 months ago
Sierra Club BC CUT AND PASTE!
Hide Replies (5)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
I think it's time you explained why you think this discussion has anything to do with the Sierra Club.
Hide Replies (4)
kevansears 8 months ago
Good Question...have a look and then ask them why they are facilitating this highly formatted information so that people can cut and paste the Sierra Club BC's views!http://sierraclub.bc.ca/take-action-centre/tanker-ban-comments/
Hide Replies (2)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
You can find this same link on several different websites. Why are you picking on the Sierra Club?
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
Just the one that came up on my search
West49th 8 months ago
Then tell us who it is Virginia that has the concerted campaign underway to fog and clog the forum.
MaryInga 8 months ago
I don't know. Kevansears?
mtdinyvr 8 months ago
So what if its cut and paste ? Some people might not have the time or the know how to write their own remarks, but at least they are taking the time to make their feelings on the subject known !!!!!!!!!! And that is good !
Hide reply (1)
West49th 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to moderation rules
cspeakma 8 months ago
The Government needs to consult on a nation-to-nation basis with ALL of the First Nations whose traditional & ancestral territories (be they treatied or unceded) touch the coast line. The beliefs of these peoples must be given the utmost respect. The moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament.It must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.It must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. I think it should be expanded to all of BC's coasts because shipping crude oil is incredibly dangerous and in the first place we need to keep that stuff in the ground.The tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying crude or refined oil in bulk as cargo, including in particular persistent oil, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities such as those on Vancouver Island.Thank you for taking my comments into consideration. Peace.
Kathryn McCourt 8 months ago
I have read three articles today, two in the Guardian and one in another publication, to the effect that we need to have phased out fossil fuels and the engines that run on them by 2030 if we hope to hold global warming to the 1.5 degrees agreed upon in Paris. Some scientists say that it is already too late.Is spending time discussing how and whether the Government should formalize a crude oil tanker moratorium on the west coast not another way of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?
Hide Replies (2)
West49th 8 months ago
I for one do not buy into the global warming scare and Trudeau had no right to tie the country to that agreement. It's an arbitrary date that many scientists not on the government payroll disagree with. The Swiss have just halted their Green Initiative Project saying it is too costly trying to do "too much too soon". That is what Trudeau has done.
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
Could you share where this information could be found on the Swiss--Thank you
ProtectBC'sCoast 8 months ago
This Oil tanker ban is very important for protecting BC's coast from oil spills. The oil tanker ban needs to be permanent, with no sunset clause, or an expiry date. This part is really important because the Great Bear Rainforest needs to be protected for forever. It is equally important that the oil tanker ban is a legislated act of parliament. This would make the ban hard to reverse. It should include all types of oil, from diluted bitumen to crude oil. The oil tanker ban should include all of the North Coast waters. This means that all of the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, and Queen Charlotte Sound needs to be included in the oil tanker ban. The ban needs to refer to all ships transporting oil in bulk as cargo, but allow small ships to bring fuel to coastal communities if it is necessary for the communities to function. In short, this oil tanker ban has to be very strong and difficult to repeal, so that the north coast is forever protected from oil spills that would destroy the coastal economy.
clubbrug 8 months ago
A tanker ban for a specific product, carried in a specific type of vessel, in a specific area of the West Coast seem arbitrary. Why is it OK to import foreign oil on Canada's east coast but not OK to export Canadian oil from Canada's west coast?The Justin Trudeau campaigned on making fact based decisions. All the facts and all the studies clearly conclude the same. Tanker traffic risks can be managed to an acceptable level and this is proven all over the world everyday. Alarmists will point to one or two incidents that have happened throughout the history of the world and using that to say the risk is unacceptable. This is ridiculous and clearly a statement made by people who do not understand risk mitigation and how probability factors into risk level. The facts are that the largest oil spill on BC coast was when the passenger ferry the Queen of the North sank. If oils spills are an unacceptable risk then the tanker ban should really be a petroleum powered water craft ban. Large cargo ships that sail into Prince Rupert and Kitimat everyday carry as much as 50,000 barrels each of bunker C fuel. This is similar to bitumen. If this ban is a fact based approach to protect against the risk of an oil spill then cargo ships, cruise ships, and bulk carriers need to be banned also. What about all the ships that carry petroleum products to all the coastal communities? Shouldn't they be banned as well? Interestingly the west coast would be safer with crude oil tanker traffic. In 2014 a Russian cargo ship lost power and was adrift for 2 days off Haida Gwaii and Canada did not have a tug boat to rescue it. A tug boat had to be called in from Washington. https://www.yahoo.com/news/tug-towing-disabled-russian-container-ship-port-164909637.html?ref The Northern Gateway Project has proposed that all tankers would be escorted by 47m long tug boats. Having these world class tug boats stationed on the West Coast would improve the safety of all marine traffic in the area since they could respond to any stricken vessel.Another fact is that up to 2 million barrels per day of crude oil from Alaska sails by Canada's west coast enroute to the lower 48 states. How does it protect the environment to allow foreign oil tankers sail past BC but not allow Canadian oil sail from BC?Another fact is that everyone in Canada consumes petroleum everyday to feed them, clothe them, shelter them, keep them warm or cool, and transport them. Why wouldn't Canada want to share its abundant and responsibly produced petroleum products with the world? Petroleum products are Canada's largest export to the world. The revenue from extracting and selling this vital resource generates Billions of dollars in tax revenue and additional Billions of dollars in salaries paid to everyday Canadians from coast to coast. If the Canadian Government does not want to allow Canadian companies to sell petroleum products to the world, someone else will and they will reap the financial reward and improve their citizen's standard of living while Canadian's standard of living diminishes Justin Trudeau, I encourage you to keep you campaign promise and make fact based decisions for the benefit of all Canadians.
Hide Replies (17)
BritishColumbianNotAlbertan 8 months ago
This poster asks this question, copied directly, in their second paragraph: "Why is it OK to import foreign oil on Canada's east coast but not OK to export Canadian oil from Canada's west coast?"Here is the answer: The east coast is exceptionally, and anyone who knows Canada's coastal geography knows well, exceptionally less hazardous to shipping than the narrow, channeled and fiorded waters of the west coast inside passage. The Alaska tankers that travel past it do so far, far out to sea where they will not hit rocks, run aground, or lose control in often foggy, rainy, narrow, confined waterways. The poster attempts to answer the question by stating certain 47 meter escorting tugs, perhaps the poster or a qualified marine pilot would like to comment or provide evidence on the safety factor these tugboats would provide, such as ship to ship weight ratios and horsepower capabilities regarding the the load directed on the tanker the tugboat is escorting. Regarding fuel oil to coastal communities, I would like to hear how small these shipments are, and how small the spill would be if one occurred.
Hide Replies (14)
Nklatt 8 months ago
1) You may want to actually go to northern BC to see for yourself the amount of tanker traffic that travels down the coast to/from Alaska. I spend a summer on the Northern BC coast working for a forestry conservation group. On average, I could see 3-5 Oil tankers go by daily! I think your sadly misinformed about the actual tanker traffic that's there already! Oh and the Saint Lawerence Sea way access is one of the most trechoreous in the world, just due to the number of heavy storms that hit there each year!
Hide Replies (4)
kevansears 8 months ago
Well that Tanker traffic is not part of this (potential) decision! They will keep on moving oil down the coast regardless!
Hide Replies (2)
kevansears 8 months ago
(That is Tanker Traffic from Alaska going south out in open sea)
Hide reply (1)
Nklatt 8 months ago
Considering this was just north of Kitimat...no it wasn't but thank you for telling me what I've witnessed and where!
West49th 8 months ago
Thank you for this information.
clubbrug 8 months ago
You will find all the answers you are looking for when all your questions and many others were examined as part of the Northern Gateway Pipeline project review at:http://gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc.ca/clf-nsi/dcmnt/rcmndtnsrprt/rcmndtnsrprt-eng.htmlIn particular Section 7 will be of interest to you. Here you will find important facts like cruise ships and container ships are more at risk in high winds than tankers since they have a much larger cross sectional area above the water line. Another important fact is that there has never been a tanker run aground when escorted by a tug.
Hide reply (1)
West49th 8 months ago
Thank you for your information. It really helps to get more facts!
kevansears 8 months ago
So get the pipeline east completed and then we wouldn't need tankers bring oil in from the middle east!
Hide Replies (6)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
The diluted bitumen from the Energy East pipeline is not destined for domestic use. It's for export.
Hide Replies (5)
kevansears 8 months ago
Good to know--can't we refine our own? Then there is definitely less tankers shipping!
Hide Replies (4)
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
Actually, oil will be destined for two refineries in Quebec and one in St. John: http://www.transcanada.com/energy-east-pipeline.html
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
good to know!
West49th 8 months ago
There was an article I read that said they should have built an oil refinery on the west coast 20 years ago but they waffled and here we are today needing a pipeline through Quebec. Too bad.
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
For sure would have been great to have been refining our own all these years. BP-Cherry Point in Birch Bay just keeps expanding and expanding--Right now BP trucks 60% of YVR's jet fuel across the boarder and through surrey and richmond"YVR receives about 1,000 tanker truck deliveries of jet fuel a month, with each tanker truck travelling more than 140 km round trip per delivery."http://www.vancouverairportfuel.ca/project-need-benefits"YVR Airport isn't waiting for Canadian refineries to make more jet fuel. The city is building a marine terminal on the South Arm of the Fraser River. The plan is to import jet fuel from Washington State by tanker and run a 13 km underground pipeline through the city of Richmond to the YVR airport.Interestingly, the plan has received no opposition from local mayors, politicians and environmental groups. Importing foreign oil rarely receives the negative press and backlash that comes from any attempt to export Canadian oil to foreign markets."http://www.oilsandsmagazine.com/news/2016/3/03/why-vancouver-desperately-needs-a-new-oil-refinery"Canada exports 145,000 BBL/DAY of Alberta Crude to Washington State refineries then imports gasoline and jet fuel from those same refineries back into the Vancouver market."
hambone 8 months ago
Very well said. Finally some facts instead of wishful thinking emotion.
MaryInga 8 months ago
A lot of 'crude' facts here, but we should remember that to the fossil fuel industry, facts are often one of the by products of their industry. In the States, Exxon is currently in trouble for the billions it has spent manufacturing facts to keep us in the dark about climate change. AND THAT'S A FACT. NO ONE WOULD BE GOING TO COURT IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE OF A DECADES LONG COVER UP....LIKE THAT PERFORMED BY BIG TOBACCO APPARENTLY, BUT WITH MORE DEADLY CONSEQUENCES.So here's my small contribution to this collection of facts from Clubbrug.1. Raw bitumen is not sweet light crude. Pretending that everything is the same...that oil is oil is oil, is one of the industries standard tactics. Its called reductivism, or perhaps fossil fundamentalism. But hydrocarbons come in many shapes and sizes...they are not all the same. Unrefined bitumen is not a liquid...its a crud more like assphalt. Any decisions about how to ship it, needs to keep that FACT clear. Big Oil doesn't believe in facts of that specificity. Our government better.2. Tug boats are infallible so actually having mega tankers plying our coastal waters will keep us more safe. I won't even comment on this 'fact' except to say no thank you. I'd prefer my tax dollars to be spent on climate change mitigation, not divine tugboats on a fail safe mission!3. Tankers already ply our coastal waters, coming from Alaska? I think that's just another conflation of a more complex reality. Alaskan tankers are far out to sea...in the middle of the ocean there are no coastal waters.4. We export fossil fuels in Canada to make everyone rich. Well that claim is rich, but I don't think its a fact. The percentage of GDP due to oil is well under 10 %. Even with the spin off jobs, we're not quite yet Nigeria. Besides, we can make more jobs and money, using our oil to transition off of it....selling it abroad might be Big Oil's idea of philanthropy. That take on charity needs some fact checking as well.5. If Canada doesn't export, others will. Now this isn't what philosopher's call a fact. this is what they might call a justification. Hey!!! Everyone steals, so there's no point in us being honest. Honestly. Facts have become as plastic as plastic, if this idea counts for factual reality.6. And I knew we'd get to it. That old canard, 'did you drive here in a car? Drinking out of a paper cup?" As if a past mistake must be legislated for all eternity, apologists for fossil fuel extraction and raw export, try to convince us its not the industry that's guilty, its the consumer!!! Well it doesn't wash. Sign up for a Tesla, they are on the way. Invest in electric charge stations along our major highways....and get your electricity from clean sources. Our past dependence on oil does not commit us to sticking with that situation....it is actually a fact that indicates how much trouble we are in...........and how fast we need to defossilize our lifestyle.Mega tankers coming up the Douglas Channel, or the Burrard inlet will make that transition harder. Which is the 'mega fact' that lurks under all of these reassurances you've offered.At least that is what my research is suggesting to me, with all due respect.
J. David Cox 8 months ago
The most important issue is to continue the moratorium until CRUDE OIL and Dilbit are no longer considered for export. The only way to export that environmental poison is to process it first so that the 'product' will evaporate upon release. Such a solution, of course, is not going to help the atmosphere but we are incapable of taking a large oil spill on the coast unless it is self-cleaning. You STILL want to make money for the elite few? Then first build a distillation plant.
Lorraine Fralin 8 months ago
Yes, Sue Martin and thank you for the correction. This is all too much and I am so stressed out that I am not typing accurately. NO oil tankers should travel along the BC Coast under any circumstances is my final comment.
Mcbs 8 months ago
How does the government plan to account for the breeding grounds of orcas that have called the coastal channels of British Columbia home for many millennia? What are the 20 year, and longer term, environmental effects of dredging and increased freight travel within remote, glacier fed, deep water ecosystems?
Food88food 8 months ago
We need a strong, legislated moratorium with no possible reversal or expiry date. It has to cover the minimum areas as outlined already- Hecate, Dixon, and Queen Charlotte Sound. It needs to cover all cargo oil transport and exclude local fuel delivery.
ddoug 8 months ago
Effects from previous tanker spills gave lasted many decades. We can't afford more spills. Whereas we have no sufficiently effective ways to contain and recover crude and bunker fuel, we simply need to keep nonessential ships away from our coasts. Since crude and LNG tankers are clearly nonessential, the right choice is clear: moratorium.
Theo F Stad 8 months ago
Our west coast ocean environment is too fragile to allow oil or LNG super tankers to move around and through it. And I've seen the damaging changes climate change has caused in western and northern Canada so please ban all oil and LNG tanker traffic from this coast as it is will be a mega major contributor to worsening climate change.Please make a permanent ban on oil and LNG tankers on the west coast of Canada!
D Lynn Chapman 8 months ago
Further.. I support the advice and submission to this issue from West Coast Environmental Law. As an average citizen it is impossible for me to adequately comment on the detailed level of information under consideration. I have reviewed WCEL's FAQ and feel it addresses the important questions Government should consider. I hope their input will be included in the final decision. My overriding desire is to ensure our coast is protected from the risks that oil tankers pose to sea and shore life and marine safety as well as my deep concern about the climate change impacts of continuing to ship fossil fuels from Canada to be burned elsewhere. The WCEL FAQ brief I refer to is at this link. http://wcel.org/sites/default/files/publications/KeepingOurCoastClean.pdf
D Lynn Chapman 8 months ago
I believe that Government should place a permanent ban on oil and bitumen and other fossil fuel tankers on the the West Coast. This would go some way to stopping Canadian contributions to climate change. A moratorium would at least prevent the harms in the short run. Yes I know people will disagree. Oh well.
StephenEC 8 months ago
The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament. The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.
Hide Replies (5)
Nklatt 8 months ago
Another copy, paste...way to think for yourself
Hide Replies (3)
kevansears 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to moderation rules
Hide Replies (2)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
While you're at it, why not post all the similar links on several other environmental websites? Or is it just the Sierra Club that irks you?
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
I think I already replied to this...the Sierra Club BC is what readily came-up. No it is not the Sierra Club more the reality of people posting scrips that others are providing.So, to use your words, Google is a great tool--I suggest you go looking to answer your question.
West49th 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to moderation rules
Eleanor Brownlee 8 months ago
I am not sure if the submission I tried to make earlier today was successfully sent and received so will try again.The oil tanker moratorium should be legislated by an Act of Parliament.The moratorium should not contain a sunset clause or an expiry date.The legislated oil tanker ban should at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound as set out in the Mandate Letter of the Ministry of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. The Douglas Channel has been important in recent proposals and it too should be protected by the ban.While not directly part of this current proposal the south coast of B.C., in particular the Salish Sea, is also desperately in need of protection from the hazards of oil tanker traffic. At the very least the long awaited completion of the NMCA in this area should be finalized and put in place.The oil tanker moratorium should comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil of any kind in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of oil to coastal communities.A ban on oil tanker traffic is absolutely necessary in order to protect the West Coast's unique and diverse marine ecosystem, to preserve the marine resources which sustain the community and regional economies of B.C., and to honour the extensive First Nations rights and title in the area.
JanWillis 8 months ago
This is a crucial time in the history of life on this planet and we need to be taking it seriously and we need to make the Environment our number one priority. Our future generations are counting on us to do what is right. No more considering only selfish gains. We need Vision for a different economy and a different way of viewing fossil fuels. We need to stop raping the planet and destroying what ultimately sustains us. This moratorium should include as follows: The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.Jan Willis
Hide reply (1)
West49th 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect the views of other users. Please refer to moderation rules
Doris Gallas 8 months ago
The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament. The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date. The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. I would like to see this extended to the Salish Sea as well, as we have here a recognized world class natural heritage site. The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.
Hide reply (1)
West49th 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect the views of other users. Please refer to moderation rules
Timdb 8 months ago
A crude oil tanker moratorium, if established, should exclude a corridor that would ensure safe marine transit for oil tankers from the Port of Prince Rupert into the open Pacific. It would be mandatory for oil tankers using such a corridor to meet a list of safety requirements including double hulls, compulsory pilotage and minimum oil spill insurance coverage. Canada needs to establish a deep water port on the BC north coast in order that Canadian produced oil can be shipped to offshore world markets. Canada cannot continue to rely solely on the US market for the sale of its oil.
Hide reply (1)
West49th 8 months ago
No moratorium.
sid 8 months ago
The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.
Hide reply (1)
West49th 8 months ago
YOu are one of the concerted campaign to flood this forum. I will disregard this post.
wellas 8 months ago
Norway has tankers on its coast with no problem. Oil is shipped from Alaska with no problems. Surely Canada is capable of equal competence.
CarlaM 8 months ago
The most important issues that government must address in its plan to formalize a crude oil tanker moratorium is to ensure that the ban is legislated by an Act of Parliament in order to remove ambiguity about the legal status of the moratorium and it is equally important to me that this ban does not contain a sunset clause or expiry date. The waters and communities (human and other) of this coastline should be protected in perpetuity.
Hide reply (1)
West49th 8 months ago
No I do not agree with you and you are part of the concerted campaign on this forum to forward your cause.
Mike Colyar 8 months ago
If the residents of Albert want to continue turning their province into a toxic waste hole, that is their business. One big spill in the Georgia Straits and the game is over for everything we hold dear. B.C. is beautiful and keeping the big tankers out is totally important.
Hide Replies (10)
Energy_Exports_are_vital 8 months ago
Do you drive a car ? Did you ever fly a plane ?
Hide Replies (9)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
There are many electric vehicles on the roads today, and a solar-powered aircraft has already circumnavigated the globe, so what's your point?
Hide Replies (5)
Energy_Exports_are_vital 8 months ago
A gallon of gasoline can transport a family of 4 with gear for 40 km or so. You need ten to 15 times the weight of batteries for that today .. burning up 20kwh roughly. In addition, it takes 20h to charge with a 110 V line, 10h with a 220V line and about 2h with a 1000V line. Energy density and charge times are the Achilles heel of EVs, not easily overcome !
hambone 8 months ago
Do you have an electric car? Have you flown anywhere in a solar powered airplane? Do you use plastic Tupperware in your kitchen?
Jeanette 8 months ago
Adoption of EV's in the US is less than 1% of vehicle sales. Not a rousing endorsement for a quick shift to EV's. See belowEV Adoption Trends: Lessons from Down SouthJuly 12, 2016By Peter TertzakianPhoto: Peter TertzakianPhoto: Peter TertzakianThe Ontario government recently renewed their Electric Vehicle Incentive Program (EVIP). In Canada, there are three provinces, BC, Ontario and Québec that subsidize Electric Vehicle (EV) purchases for kick starting adoption. Other jurisdictions may follow.What can we learn from five years of EV sales?To this point Canadian statistics are scant, and frankly the numbers are de minimis to draw meaningful conclusions. American sales data since 2011 is more significant and provides some food for thought for potential EV adoption in Canada.There are two types of EVs that plug into a power source. First are Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) – simplistically these are the type that you plug in at night, but still have the safety net of a small gasoline tank and generator so that you don’t run out of battery charge in the middle of Manitoba (and don’t have access to a 200 km long extension cord).On the pure end of the spectrum, Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) have no auxiliary backup. Clandestine snacking on hydrocarbons is not allowed.Our feature chart this week provides five years of US sales data for PHEVs and BEVs.Embryonic adoption of EVs began in 2011, when the first serious products began to emerge. Early offerings came from notable automakers like Nissan, Toyota and Tesla. Growth was linear for two years until mid-2013. At that time collective sales reached around 8,000 per month, or not quite 0.5% of all vehicles sold in the United States. Subsidies in large-population states like California, combined with the Federal program, have helped the uptrend.One of the most notable things in the monthly US data is the 50% drop-off in sales every January and February. Safe to say, the desire to buy electric vehicles cools off during the middle of winter.To be fair, all other vehicle sales drop off when the blizzards are raging in Chicago and Boston. But the drop-off in gasoline vehicle sales is typically only about 25% in the first two months of the year, far less than for EVs. The US winter sales experience may suggest that adoption of EVs in northern-latitude Canada might be more challenging – at least until the negative stigma of cold-weather performance is overcome.2016-07-12 ARC ChartAfter the initial uptrend, combined PHEV and BEV sales since 2013 have been largely flat. This is due to plenty of reasons including: A narrow range of model offerings that limits choice; high cost of EVs versus their relative utility (even after subsidies); and low gasoline prices that lure buyers back to the status quo.There are signs that US EV sales in the last few months may be nudging up again, mostly on the back of rising PHEV sales. But the total sold is still less than 0.9% of all US light duty vehicles, which is inconsequential to gasoline demand.Ontario’s target of 5% of new car sales by 2020 is ambitious and will require a meaningful improvement in the factors that have stalled adoption in the US (as mentioned earlier). Issues hindering EV adoption should ease, but generous subsidies will certainly be needed in the early days.Over the next few years more EV models are on the way from automakers like GM, VW, Porsche and Hyundai. Newer generations will offer better technology that should help mitigate buyer anxieties like range and cold weather operation. But engineering savvy won’t be enough. Future adoption of EVs will be less a function of technology and more dependent on softer factors like consumer preference in the face of competition. EVs have many advantages, but there are a lot of piston-headed people who will be difficult to convert.The Chevy Bolt, a pure BEV from GM, will be released later this year and will be an important market test in the sub-$US 30,000 category. And of course there is the much touted Tesla Model 3, which has reported an impressive 373,000 in orders (as of May). But orders are not final sales, so the Model 3 numbers won’t be tacked onto the bar charts until the sleek cars show up in driveways – probably nothing meaningful to add until 2018.Step changes to the petroleum dominated transportation paradigm are happening, but it’s quite likely that the overall adoption rate of EVs will remain muted, and unlikely to return to linear growth before 2018 or 2019. That’s an interesting time frame: A couple-of-years-out is when today’s lack of investment into the global oil complex is likely to show up as serious supply tightening. Rising oil prices will be the best catalyst for recharging EV adoption.Ironically, EV-friendly Ontario and oil-producing Alberta may both achieve their goals.
Hide reply (1)
West49th 8 months ago
When do you suppose EV's as you call them will be going on sale second hand. Because most of the population cannot afford them or any new vehicle for that matter. Get real!
West49th 8 months ago
Are you driving an electric vehicle?
JPierre33 8 months ago
That is nothing but fossilized thinking - belongs in the past.
lucymc 8 months ago
Are you suggesting that the fuel used for the car I drive or the plane I might fly in comes from exported bitumen from BC's North Coast?
Hide reply (1)
West49th 8 months ago
Well where do you suppose your fuel comes from. It just magically appears in your tank?
cfalconer 8 months ago
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Transport Minister Marc GarneauGentlemen:Re: The need for a legislated oil tanker ban on BC’s North CoastI am writing today to request that you enshrine in legislation the moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic on B.C.’s North coast, including Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. I was born and have lived in BC most of my life and the thought of an oil spill along any part of BC’s coast brings fear to my heart. Time does not heal the environment desecrated by an oil spill. The only way to protect the northern BC coast marine environment (as defined above) from this danger is to prohibit oil tankers from the area. Although there is currently a federal commitment to such a ban, this ban should be legislated. With legislation the ban will be “more set in stone,” requiring a change in legislation for those who wish to ignore such a moratorium. Legislation will give Canada lasting protection from the risks of oil tankers and provide a legal basis for this protection.A strong oil tanker ban should include the following (from West Coast Environmental Law):• The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament.• The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.• The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.• The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.I believe Canadians want healthy oceans. I believe healthy oceans are an integral part of Canada’s environmental, social, and economic fabric. As a British Columbian, I feel the risk of an oil accident on our coast is unacceptable. It would negatively impact the environment, the industries and the people that rely on healthy oceans.Economics is a very important reason to legislate this ban. Our marine environment supports our economy by generating income, providing jobs, and contributing to the GDP. In addition, it is a valuable part of the social, cultural and ecological fabric of Canada. I am in favour of a comprehensive definition of the terms in such legislation, including the definition of the banned types of vehicles of transport and the types of oil to be banned. However, this legislation must also allow for transport of fuel products needed by our island and coastal communities. Again this legislation must be carefully drafted so that such local needs cannot be used as a loophole to ship oil products in bulk.I have one last recommendation. West Coast Environmental Law should be part of the consultation team for drafting this legislation.
Hide reply (1)
West49th 8 months ago
Obviously there is a concerted campaign going on here by people from the same crowd of environmentalists. They are repetitive and not representative of the mainstream of people in British Columbia. My recommendation is to discount most of their rhetoric. This online submission forum is restrictive. There are many people that I can think of sitting at home who do not have access to computers who would be horrified to know that you are attempting to usurp their rights by acting unilaterally this way. This is not Canadian.
Dr. Stefan Manhart 8 months ago
The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.
Hide Replies (4)
kevansears 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to moderation rules
kevansears 8 months ago
Hey there Moderator,So you have a problem with "losing your brain"(BUT...you have no problem with the abundance of people who copy and paste the same thing over and over with a overwhelmingly obvious intention to influence the decision.Why not hit "reply" and offer an answer?
Hide Replies (2)
West49th 8 months ago
Kevin you're right. Do you think the moderator is biased?
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
Without a doubt! This talk thing has a liberal stink to it!
Diane Kennedy 8 months ago
I live in Victoria on Vancouver Island and believe that transporting oil by supertankers in turbulent and hazardous inland coastal waters poses an unacceptable risk to the marine environment, to the communities and the businesses that depend upon that environment.Industries on our coast such as fishing, aquaculture and tourism depend on a healthy ocean. A study from UBC’s Fisheries Centre done in 2014 found that a large scale oil spill could cost local fishermen, the Port of Prince Rupert, BC Ferries and marine tourism operators roughly $300-million, 4,000 full-time jobs and $200-million in contribution to GDP over 50 years, not including damage to social, cultural and ecological values. Each year ocean-based industries on the north coast of B.C. generate about $1.2-billion, provide employment for more than 9,000 people and contribute approximately $700-million to GDP.
Hide reply (1)
West49th 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect the views of other users. Please refer to moderation rules
Timdb 8 months ago
I am not in favour of the Federal Government establishing a crude oil tanker moratorium. However, if one is established it should exclude a corridor that would ensure safe marine transit for oil tankers from the Port of Prince Rupert into the open Pacific. It would be mandatory for oil tankers using such a corridor to meet a list of safety requirements including double hulls, compulsory pilotage and minimum oil spill insurance coverage. Canada needs to establish a deep water port on the BC north coast in order that Canadian produced oil can be shipped to offshore world markets. Canada cannot continue to rely solely on the US market for the sale of its oil.
Hide Replies (3)
kevansears 8 months ago
Good--keep a waterway open for the north and regulate the rest that will not impact tankers moving oil to market!
Hide Replies (2)
West49th 8 months ago
Yes I agree to a degree. But I don't believe it is in the best interests of BC to have restricted access to their own waterways.
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
Basically these tankers are going to be moving in two specific areas the North as it relates the the northern port and out of Vancouver. Both are where tankers will navigate in and out relating to the open sea. I could understand the logic if this was written into some form of protection but keeping the agreement open for adjustments based on the reality that over time things change! An outright ban with no room to ever make amendments is coming from crazy people and the "organizations/lobbyist groups that only want to shut down our/Canadian oil and gas resource sector! Absolutely in no way should we be blowing this to happen!
DaveShannon 8 months ago
To adequately protect the North and Central Coast waters and coastlines the Crude Oil Tanker Moratorium should consist of the following:  The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an act of Parliament with no end clause or expiry date. The legislated oil tanker moratorium must cover Hecate Straight, Dixon Entrance, Queen Charlotte Sound and the region west of Haida Gwaii extending to the voluntary Tanker Exclusion Zone (TEZ). The legislated oil tanker moratorium must include vessels carrying the types of hydrocarbons which are very difficult to adequately recover in a timely manner (See the IOPC description of ‘Contributing Oils’ on page 4 of documentservices.iopcfunds.org/meeting-documents/download/docs/1718/lang/en/ which identifies the oil types and the recommended test method for identifying persistent oil). As described in the IOPC definition, the oils to include in the moratorium are:• Crude oils• persistent oils(1)• and oil/water emulsions of hydrocarbons The moratorium must not interfere with the continued delivery of fuels needed by Coastal Communities currently in place.Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England (former Governor of the Bank of Canada) has made repeated calls for Canada to leave the oil sands in the ground a ‘stranded asset’. This is consistent with climate change goals of COP21 and Prime Minister Trudeau’s commitment to the goals of the Paris talks. Furthermore, we will need those oil sands assets in the future for Canada’s own energy security and it makes no sense to plunder our stocks of this precious resource for the good of another country while we sacrifice our own childrens’ future(2).Dave Shannon,Terrace, B.C.Footnotes:(1)) A thorough description of persistent and non-persistent oil is given in http://www.environmental-research.com/erc_reports/ERC_report_17.pdf, a 2003 paper by Environmental Research Consulting (ERC), written for the EPA’s Oil Program.(2) See: the recent court case of Climate Scientist Dr. James Hansen acting as Plaintiff along with twenty-one youth from across the U.S. in http://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/us/federal-lawsuit/...
Hide reply (1)
West49th 8 months ago
Oh no, you cannot have it both ways. Ban the tankers but supply coastal communities with their energy needs. I don't think so!
mckeen 8 months ago
I want a permanent and federally legislated oil tanker ban on BC's north coast to preserve the salmon fishery, the tourism industry, and to protect the health and safety of local residents.The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.The moratorium must not be over-ruled or overturned by foreign trade agreements already in place or to be written in the future.
Hide Replies (43)
Nklatt 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Comment is not related to the topic. . Please refer to moderation rules
Hide Replies (20)
kevansears 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Comment is not related to the topic. . Please refer to moderation rules
Hide Replies (18)
Susanpwalker 8 months ago
If those who comment didn't agree with the 'special interest group' content as you call it, they wouldn't post the material. Let them have their say. The language they use is clear and concise. I too support the outright permanent and federally legislated oil tanker ban on BC's north coast. The world needs to alter its course and bold steps need to be made to protect the environment and slow climate change. Alternate energy technologies exist and should be supported instead of protecting and pandering to a dying, polluting industry. If displaced workers need to be retrained to perform other jobs then implement those programs in conjuction with the moratorium. Should we wait until a massive oil spill occurs and damages our fragile ecosystem and shuts down neighbouring communities? It's just a matter of time before another Exxon Valdez, Gulf oil or Amoco Cadiz disaster. It’s estimated that 250,000 seabirds, 2,800 sea otters, 300 harbor seals, 250 bald eagles, up to 22 killer whales died along with billions of salmon and herring eggs as a result of the Exxon Valdez spill. Then, add in the the negative economic impact of the spill and loss of jobs. So, here goes...I want a permanent and federally legislated oil tanker ban on BC's north coast to preserve the salmon fishery, the tourism industry, and to protect the health and safety of local residents.The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.The moratorium must not be over-ruled or overturned by foreign trade agreements already in place or to be written in the future.
Hide Replies (14)
kevansears 8 months ago
Trouble is these are not their comments! They are taken from a pre-scripted group trying to swing the vote in a particular direction--total closure of the West Coast! Have you considered the same principles for all of Canada's coastal waters???? Yes we need to be responsible in handling any potentially damaging products but we also have to be reasonable allowing people to live and work. Pipelines and Tankers have that already built in to their engineering and safety systems. (No matter what there will always be an element of risk) Ask yourself a question, how many ways do you use and consume products related to oil? There is more to this that speaks to a manipulation and total shutting down of Canadian oil production and movement to market(s) other that the USA.
Hide Replies (7)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
The USA doesn't want your bitumen either.
Hide Replies (5)
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
Well, they do and they don't. The U.S. wants it at 30-40% discounts that they currently receive, not at world price, which is what they would pay if Canada had access to other markets. So they fund anti oil sands, anti pipeline protest groups in Canada via middleman organizations like Tides. It would be quite interesting to watch if it weren't so destructive to the Canadian economy. Meanwhile the U.S. has started exporting oil and gas for the first time in decades. They are exporting our product. They are exporting it at world price. Not sure how anyone who knows this can think this is a good thing for Canada.
Hide Replies (4)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
I agree that NAFTA must be renegotiated by a government that isn't content with being the mouse that always gets stomped on by the elephant next door.
kevansears 8 months ago
Not at all difficult to follow the money that transfers through Tides (AKA, Big US Oil) to Canadian (so called charities) that are only about funding anti-Canadain oil protest groups! Wonder why they would be interested in shutting down BC-North Tanker Traffic...?
Hide reply (1)
West49th 8 months ago
You have to believe that Trudeau and his cabinet have bought into the misinformation campaign from the foreign-funded environmentalists.
MaryInga 8 months ago
It's hard to know how to respond to some of these claims, Chuck....because while I've heard them before they don't make a lot of sense. You see, I know that bitumen must be upgraded and then refined before it actually qualifies as 'oil' So the question I have, is how do you get the world price...and what do you even mean by, the world price, for a product that is still in its raw state when it reaches tidewater?It seems to me that there is more hype in the story, than actual reality....and that leads me to agree with Rubin. These pipeines are the pipedreams of folks who tend to leave out the details....because they are desperate to believe that the Alberta advantage is going to go on forever. Many poeple have their doubts about that....climate change or no climate change. This bitumen bubble cannot be the wealth generator appolilgists claim it is....for Alberta...or for Canada.The economics don't add up.
West49th 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to moderation rules
kevansears 8 months ago
C Dandy 20 minutes agoThis has nothing to do with protecting the planet and everything to do with an economic war waged by foreign interest on Canadian energy. If it was about protecting the planet there would be a ban on tanker traffic through the iceberg filled Gulf of St Lawrence and down the seaway to Montreal.The United States is importing our light sweet oil for $3 to $4 a barrel less than they are selling their light sweet oil to the world, does it surprise anyone that there is US funding of anti pipeline groups. Saudi Arabia was willing to go billions of dollars into debt over the last few years to protect their market share is it any wonder they also fund groups that oppose getting Canadian oil to a world market.First follow the money, if you cannot find anyone that benefits in significant sums then maybe media and advocates are offering a morally motivated position. As soon as large amounts of money get involved it becomes harder to make a good choice. In this case if we are against oil tankers in Canadian waters then that should go both ways. It seems we are in favour of importing oil by tankers but against exporting oil by tankers. If we are going to take a position against exporting oil then time to shut off the pipelines to the US but it seems that we are in favour of exporting discounted oil (and natural gas) but against exporting at the higher world price.
Hide Replies (4)
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
Absolutely agree! Thanks for posting.
ProudAlbertan 8 months ago
Wow, someone that understands the issue. I agree 1000%. Very well done.
Jan 8 months ago
when the price for oil on the world market is about US$44 and cost of production is $85Can. why are we wanting to export?
West49th 8 months ago
Then shut the taps off to the States and let the screaming begin. Prepare to give up your daily cappuccino Vancouverites! You will be paying more taxes and getting less services because there is no revenue to pay for it.
hambone 8 months ago
If you think any decisions taken by Canada are going to influence the world you are absolutely kidding yourself.
prairiegale 8 months ago
Get a life! Nothing better to do than complain about people who are posting the suggestions of organizations that they agree with! Go find something better to do.
Hide Replies (2)
kevansears 8 months ago
Nice positive response! Just drawing attention to the over abundance of people posting the same rhetoric. So what should we do go home and be quiet--that is respectful talking! Yes, the title is let talk not lets copy and paste what others have scripted
Hide reply (1)
prairiegale 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users.Please refer to moderation rules
mtdinyvr 8 months ago
So what if its cut and paste ? Some people might not have the time or the know how to write their own remarks, but at least they are taking the time to make their feelings on the subject known !!!!!!!!!! And that is good !
Energy_Exports_are_vital 8 months ago
Stop driving cars too ? Or monthly handouts to first "nations" as they come from taxes derived by industry. Money doesn't grow on trees, you know !
Hide Replies (16)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
The auto manufacturers are making e-cars just as cheaply as some gas guzzlers, so your argument no longer makes any sense.
Hide Replies (14)
kevansears 8 months ago
Again its not just what we put in the tank...How much oil related products are used--Perhaps this is like asking "How many_____________does it take to change a light bulb?
Hide Replies (11)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Or perhaps it's like asking, how many unemployed oil patch workers does it take to write up a resume for a position in the renewable energy sector?
Hide Replies (10)
kevansears 8 months ago
LOL
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
If those positions were available and the skills were transferable then I'm sure they would. However that doesn't seem to be the case at present.
Hide Replies (8)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
And what is the reason those positions aren't available?
Hide Replies (7)
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
Well I suspect that because it is not economically viable, so you don't see companies investing in it. For example, there is a solar company waiting to invest in Alberta green energy, but it is waiting until the Notley govt provides massive subsidies. And if history repeats, those companies will close up shop when the subsidies run out. One can only hope that the govt is smart enough to write in environmental controls for the shut down of solar and wind farms, because otherwise Alberta will be on the hook to clean up the poison that leaks out of cracked solar panels etc. when they are no longer maintained. This has already happened in other jurisdictions (abandoned solar installations). I think that the govt has a role to play here. Make sure all companies starting up any industrial operations have money set aside (kind of like in escrow) to ensure that there are dollars to clean up. I would think that all energy companies should do this too. That's how I would approach development if I were in govt anyway.
Hide Replies (4)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
I've been reading your replies and your links to various news outlets, and I must inform you that most of them are out-of-date. Solar technology has improved by leaps and bounds recently, so that these 'poisons' to which you refer are no longer a concern.I don't know about Alberta, but I do know that the BC government is refusing renewable energy, not because of subsidies (Premier Clark only subsidizes fossil fuel energy projects), but because the Crown corporation, BC Hydro, is bulldozing First Nations and Peace Valley Landowners by the (Trudeau sanctioned) continued construction of the Site C dam while court challenges still exist. You are very good at doing research, so please find the geological survey that proves this dam should never be built. It's being built for Premier Clark's non-existent LNG projects, not to power B.C. homes as she keeps insisting.
Hide Replies (3)
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
I'm not well-versed on that issue Virginia but it doesn't sound like a popular project. I'd be interested in solar info that shows it is more viable than I mentioned in my previous posts. Everything I've read so far (not posted by companies that have a vested interest in overstating, sort of like car manufacturers and their fuel numbers) doesn't paint a very compelling picture for solar. But I know things can change and I'm hopeful for future innovation getting us there. All of my comments are just what I've read about the current technology, etc. but I'm always willing to learn if there is more current info!
Alfor99 8 months ago
As long as the demand for energy grossly out-measures what renewable sources can provide, alternative energy solutions become a bankrupt concept. No alternative energy supplier can get a foothold in a market or compete with cheaper sources like coal, oil, and gas. No invester in their right mind would sink hard earned dollars into a losing concept. Thus, there are no jobs and no promising future in renewables in it's current state, in Canada.
West49th 8 months ago
Well Virginia there is a Santa Claus. Oh wait, that's another story. The Swiss have just halted their Green Initiative Project as it was not working and costing way more than was manageable. They were trying to do "too much too soon". So they have scrapped it. Where is all the money going to come from to fund these green technologies. Winter is upon us and the whole country side will be cutting down the forests for fuel if there is no oil and gas. Give your head a shake!!
West49th 8 months ago
The Swiss have just scaled back their Green Initiative that was to be in effect for 2050. It has proven too costly and "too much too soon". Massive subsidies to Notley's eager band of Greenies would be in the works and leave us shivering in the winter and broke all year round.
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
Need to recognize that all this green stuff is far from being ready and able to become a replacement for oil and gas--2050--really not at all a possible reality except in a, minority, Atlantis-utopia mindset.Better put another log on the fire!
MaryInga 8 months ago
If comments such as 'did you drive here in a car' ever did.....putdowns and shutdowns are what folks who don't like to research or think too deeply have to fall back on. but we don't have to give them any credence.
ProudAlbertan 8 months ago
And the purchase of these electric cars are heavily subsidized with tax money. Money in part raised from the sale of oil and the employees in the industry.
West49th 8 months ago
Here, here! You don't see them turning down the funding do you?
EN99 8 months ago
Yeah what mckeen said. But BC's north coast doesn't want to use oil, fuel or products made from oil anymore.
Hide Replies (3)
kevansears 8 months ago
How will rubbing tow sticks together and making a fire work?
Hide reply (1)
EN99 8 months ago
I agree kevansears. It is hypocritical for people to say they do not want tanker traffic yet they want all the Benifits of oil. My comment was intended to be cheeky.
West49th 8 months ago
Yeah how do they propose to stay warm this winter. Are they cutting down the forests, maybe some old growth?
West49th 8 months ago
Is the moderator really removing all dissenting opinions?
Jenetta 8 months ago
I believe that the oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament. I believe that the legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date. I believe that the legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. I believe that the legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.Jeanette C.Pender Island, British Columbia
Hide Replies (3)
West49th 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to moderation rules
Hide reply (1)
West49th 8 months ago
And we still disagree with you!
West49th 8 months ago
Yawn!
Ziggy Eckardt 8 months ago
We must do whatever needs to be done to avoid accidents. Regulations must be in place and need to be updated periodically, to keep up with known technology.It is ridiculous wanting to ban all tankers exporting Canadian oil. A tanker going down to the bottom will probably release the contents of 1, 2 or 3 compartments. Not much more than what a cruise ship carries as bunker oil. To keep Canadian waters totally pristine we could not exclude coastal supply ships, other cargo ships, fishing vessels, ferries or pleasure boats from the ban. Our concern about the West coast is misplaced if we do not also regulate the East coast. Tankers carry foreign oil up the St. Lawrence river and we even have tankers and other marine traffic on the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes are the source of drinking water for many Canadian communities and several U.S. states.Those concerned about anthropogenic climate change, a theory much disputed by scientists to begin with, should remember that Canada's total CO2 emissions are minor on the world stage. If we were to shut down Canada completely, the increased emissions by China would wipe out all accomplished gains in 38 days. It would not really take that long, because there are other nations, large and small, such as India to mention one, who do not feel the same urge to self-destruct. Let's not forget, also, that a lot of Greens picked up their basic education from the talented scare monger and moviemaker Al Gore. In 2007 the "Inconvenient Truth" was declared to be politically biased in a British Court and may not be shown in British classrooms without declaring the bias to students. One of Al Gore's statements is: " the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the warmer the climate gets..." A line that flies in the face of the current hiatus of 18 years and 10 months and the enormous amounts of anthropogenic amounts of CO2 emitted. Other scientists even question our method of obtaining measurements and interpretation of same. For instance, are the tropics getting warmer or the polar regions? Are the days hotter or the nights not quiet so cool? Are measuring stations located in the wilderness or next to heat-reflecting asphalt?...My conversations with those who wear the T-shirts of the various organizations, wishing to save the planet for their grandchildren, revealed that they have seldom heard of the natural cycles which started melting the layers of ice in North America and Northern Europe, or, what made it possible for the Vikings to cultivate Greenland!
CharlesMontpetit 8 months ago
Greetings,As a Canadian citizen who is concerned about the ecological future of the planet, my position on the tanker moratorium is simple, and coincides with the West Coast Environmental Law position on this issue. It essentially boils down to this:• The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament.• The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.• The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.• The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.The full text of the WCEL position can be found at http://wcel.org/sites/default/files/publications/KeepingOurCoastClean.pdf. Thank you.
Hide reply (1)
West49th 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to moderation rules
West49th 8 months ago
This whole discussion is a sham! Shame on the Government of Canada for trying to railroad us into this action.
Concerned401 8 months ago
I question the openness, transparency and fairness to all Canadians that the federal Government has promised. This is only a 6 week window that is opened with no public announcement. It invites discussion on how to formalize the tanker ban with no opportunity to discuss whether it should go forward. Ottawa needs to investigate the ban's social, economic, environmental and cultural ramifications. A decision can only be made after opportunity for voters has been provided to have their voices heard.
Hide Replies (2)
kevansears 8 months ago
This is anything but a fair and representative of the people!Total the, estimated 2016, populations of BC, AB and SK = 9,097,828There are, maybe, 75 people who are really contributing credible "talk" on this government siteThat is 0.00000824372587This is Definitely Representing the People...!
Hide reply (1)
West49th 8 months ago
Anything like this that affects so many people and our economy should be a referendum. What is the Govt of BC's and the Alberta Govt's positions on this travesty?
lloydmendonsa 8 months ago
The Government should beware of just considering the will of the people as many of the common people have no idea of the safety features that are on board and best practices the crew of tankers follow today. There is a common misconception that tankers are manned by drunken sailors who have no regard for the safety of the vessel or the environment. This is simply untrue. Another aspect are the doomsday activists who present an inaccurate view with deliberate intent of misinforming the ignorant citizens on tankers and the safe movement of oil on the seas
Hide Replies (3)
MaryInga 8 months ago
Unbelievable!! The government (elected by the people) should 'beware' of just considering the will of the people!!! Whose will should they consider then....those for whom energy corridors, or sacrifice zones through other people's lands promise them huge profits? I think that is the choice of corporatist (fascist) governments....but doubt it should be the go to route for a government that depends on winning elections. And let's remember, for every person who doens't understand the ins and outs of tanker routines...there are at least half a dozen citizens who've been bamboozled by all the pricey ads Big Oil has run shilling for these pipelines over the last few years. I think the governments willingness to listen to citizens is a giant step in the right direction. And quite refreshing after years of being ignored by Harper and his arrogant crew.
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
Hey Moderator, this fits the classification of inappropriate
West49th 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - This does not add the conversation. Please refer to moderation rules
Brenda Mark 8 months ago
As a resident of northwest BC, I am in full support of a long-awaited oil tanker ban on BC's north coast. It must be legislated and permanent to prevent future governments from changing it at whim. It should include a clause to allow the shipment of non-crude fuel to local communities.Water is fluid, as is crude oil before it sinks, allowing to spread. Where is the division line between north and south? I believe the oil tanker ban should include the entire west coast of BC. There are cultures and commercial enterprises depending solely on sea harvest along the entire coast. It does not make sense to have the ban in just one area.According to scientific evidence, climate change is at the point now where only net 0 carbon would mitigate the circumstances globally. Do we really need to risk an oil spill so that we can pump more carbon into our atmosphere?
Hide Replies (81)
Bucadogg 8 months ago
You will need to shutdown American oil tanker traffic to get your way. Not going to happen. To add to your concern there should be a full shutdown on all fishing in these waters, a total ban on tourism as this human traffic has a direct affect on the environment
Hide Replies (51)
Brenda Mark 8 months ago
My point is that coastal communities rely on unpolluted waters for a multimillion dollar commercial fishing and tourism industry. If their ecosystem is destroyed by a bitumen spill....no fish....no industry....ghost towns. Is that what you wish for us?
Hide Replies (40)
kevansears 8 months ago
So on a "possibility" turn the whole of Alberta not to mention the national impact, into a Ghost Town to protect fish! Not to mention that if you care to really look at the backing and practices of the special interest groups that want this, you would see that it is really about shutting down Alberta so that they don't compete with the American Oil companies who want to dominate the market!
Hide Replies (12)
Brenda Mark 8 months ago
Those fish are a major food source, especially the salmon which are the keystone to our entire ecosystem on the coast. Their numbers are already being impacted by tanker traffic, seismic testing for oil deposits and fish farming, so it's not just the 'possibility' of an oil spill. Pipelines to the coast are not going to change the status of the world market for the dying fossil fuel industry.
Hide Replies (5)
kevansears 8 months ago
So should we ban all industry all over the world because we are destroying ourselves--do you drive a car ride a bus--or are you cooking over an open wood fire--but wait then you would have to cut down a tree and that would be industry that is destroying our word! At least be a little resonable!
Hide reply (1)
Brenda Mark 8 months ago
"So should we ban industry all over the world because we are destroying ourselves"....you said it , not me. In other words lets bow down to industry so that we can continue to destroy ourselves. At some point we will be forced to make drastic lifestyle changes if we continue on this destructive path. It's not going to be pretty. Why not mitigate these circumstances now so that we at least have a chance.
Alfor99 8 months ago
Atlantic Salmon, Cod, Lobster, Scallops, and more are at risk, yet Atlantic Canada has deemed it an acceptable risk. People have realized that the realities of globalization are more competitive business environments, where energy is keystone. It's no secret how the States of Qutar, and Saudi Arabia have become so wealthy. We're suggesting the world support a more ethical energy supply, and countries have responded with a resounding yes! Followed by unprecedented investment interest. Let's give the world what it needs to transport us into a safer more secure future.
Hide Replies (2)
Brenda Mark 8 months ago
I remember when Atlantic Canada almost fished out their fish supply. They would probably deem anything an acceptable risk. There is no safe, secure future if we keep burning fossil fuels at the rate we are now.
Hide reply (1)
Alfor99 8 months ago
Portuguese and Norwegian Bottom trawlers raped and pillaged offshore cod stocks. We had the Coast Guard round them up and throw them in jail.
JPierre33 8 months ago
Ya, good idea: shut down AB's fossil fuel extraction. i,e, keep it in the ground, and start that by cutting off all subsidies to fossil fuel extraction industry; how 'bout that?
Hide Replies (2)
kevansears 8 months ago
Not sure where you get the subsidies thing!AB seems to subsidies most of this country--why not try to show a little respect and maybe some gratitude too!
MaryInga 8 months ago
A bit extreme in your prognostications of doom don't you think? Alberta will be a ghost town....its a province for goodness sake, and many of us living here don't live off oil, apologists scare tactics to the contrary. And as for Canada? The west coast fisheries have to take a hit to protect our country from dying?Looks like the triumph of ideological spin over common sense to me...and after all is said and done...yes. Our salmon are more important than Oil tankers...pray God they are still here when the age of oil is over.
Hide Replies (2)
kevansears 8 months ago
So we can refine salmon oil into gas...
Hide reply (1)
MaryInga 8 months ago
Non-sequitor Kevan. But for oil apologists, everything becomes oil. Alternatives to fossil fuels exist, and we could ramp them up quickly, were it not for so many oil and gas folks who insist its the only game...not just in town...but on the entire planet.Fish are not a substitute for oil. But nor does your need to see that industry thrive trump the survival of healthy salmon stock; Many people make their livelihoods off some aspect of the salmon fisheries also....and when oil industry people ask us to have compassion for their predicament in the current bust, it would be easier to feel that compassion..........if they ever gave any indication that they give a rap for other people's livelihoods. You can't eat oil. Or money.Wild salmon are delicious...and have been enjoyed by aboriginal people for much longer than the fossil fuel industry has existed. Have a little empathy. It's not all about you.
Bucadogg 8 months ago
no I don ot want ghost towns anywhere in this country based on local desires to hinder any economy. There has been oil shipped to/from Vancouver since the 1950's without incident and truly expect only better for newer traffic both in Vancouver and Kitimat. The income generated from oil supports millions of Canadians not just Albertans where as the local fishing and tourism supports a few Canadians. Is what you wish is to sacrifice millions of Canadians for a few Canadians???????? Extremely selfish especially when statistics do not support your what if scenario. Selfish ways are not a Canadian value however our new PM does not align with that.
Hide Replies (25)
DebbieLongley 8 months ago
This is not about protecting a few fishermen. This is about continuing to have a planet to live on. One that doesn't become uninhabitable because of environmental destruction.
Hide Replies (17)
kevansears 8 months ago
Really, you should go protest in the Middle East and see how that works for you--if you really care about misusing our planet then call for a total ban on importing Middle East oil to Canada!
Hide Replies (16)
Brenda Mark 8 months ago
OK, let's call for the ban on Middle East oil and switch to renewables instead!
Hide Replies (14)
kevansears 8 months ago
Trouble is all the "other" energy sources are not able to sustain our consumption at this point--I agree to keep at it and invest and increase renewables but it will be a long time before we can significantly reduce or reliance on oil. So being responsible in todays world, I think, means eliminating our reliance on foreign oil and making our industry the best at being responsible to our people and the world--if Canada is really back then let prove it in this part of our resource sector!
Hide Replies (13)
Laurie Embree 8 months ago
Starting new projects and building new infrastucture is a lot different from shutting down all the industry that is supporting our "needs" right now. If we are making new investments at this point they should be in energy production that is Green and makes sense for the times we live in.
Hide Replies (6)
kevansears 8 months ago
All the present and any hopeful up-and-coming green energy production won't scratch the surface of even todays new energy projects--definetly diversify but recognize that oil is going to be the major provider for a long time!
Hide Replies (4)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Wishful thinking is not reality.
Hide Replies (3)
kevansears 8 months ago
What is it that is, wishful thinking?
Hide Replies (2)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Thinking that fossil fuels will power the planet for the foreseeable future when in reality, they're on their death-bed.
Hide reply (1)
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
Hmmm...maybe the rest of the world didn't get that memo?
kevansears 8 months ago
Sorry, but the times we live in has a reality to it, which calls for an approach to sustainability and development that will largely tip towards petroleum. For the foreseeable future, our energy demands (love it or hate it) will be largely met through the production and exporting of petroleum, whether it is Canada, the USA or other nations. A current projection sugestes 1-2 generations in reserve (of course that will change over time and depending on who is reporting)(http://www.businessinsider.com/15-countries-with-the-biggest-oil-reserves-2012-4?op=1/#-canada-5)"If petroleum didn’t exist, we’d have to invent it. Nothing else comes close to oil when it comes to energy density, ease of handling, flexibility, convenience, cost, or scale.""Scientists and policymakers can claim that carbon dioxide is bad. We can talk about wind, solar, geothermal, hydrogen, and lots of other forms of energy production. But the question that too few people are willing to ask is this one: Where, how, will we find the energy equivalent of 25 Saudi Arabias and have it all be carbon-free?""The hard reality is that we won’t. The Saudis have invested hundreds of billions of dollars over the past few decades drilling wells and building their infrastructure so that they can remain the world’s most important oil exporter. And remember that all of those billions invested have given them about 3.4 percent of total global energy demand.""Here’s the bottom line: Renewables will remain niche players in the global energy mix for decades to come. The past—and the foreseeable future—still belong to hydrocarbons. And we can expect natural gas, the cleanest of the hydrocarbons, to garner a bigger share of the global energy pie in the near term and in the long term."(http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2011/10/oil_and_gas_won_t_be_replaced_by_alternative_energies_anytime_so.html)
Brenda Mark 8 months ago
Problem is the oil that comes from the Middle East is still convential crude whereas here in Canada we no longer have that resource, only the 'dirty' unconventional bitumen oil. So we would be selling dirty oil to China and continue to import somewhat cleaner oil from the Middle East. How responsible is that?
Hide Replies (4)
Jeanette 8 months ago
Not so: over a third is conventionalCanadian Oil and Natural Gas Statistics (2014)1.4 million barrels per day of conventional oil production2.2 million barrels per day of oil sands production14.8 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas production$81 billion in capital spending$17 billion in taxes and royalties paid to governments per annumOil and gas industry currently supports 500,000 jobs across CanadaOil sands are forecasted to create 790,000 new jobs by 2038 (Canadian Energy Research Institute - 2014)Oil and gas industry current comprises about 12% of the Toronto Stock Exchange
Hide Replies (3)
Brenda Mark 8 months ago
Natural gas extraction is no longer conventional. Those supplies have run out. It is now unconventional fracked methane gas with a carbon footprint that parallels coal.
Hide Replies (2)
Jeanette 8 months ago
The discussion is about oil tankers not LNG so you are off topic. But as you haven't acknowledged that your statement about unconventional oil was wrong I can see that you are not interested in learning.
Hide reply (1)
Brenda Mark 8 months ago
In your post that I responded to: quote "14.8 billion cubic feet of natural gas production." So who's off topic. Don't be sob fast to make judgment calls. So I will correct my statement and say that the conventional oil supply will run out long before the unconventional supply.
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
I can't figure out how people can give you a thumbs down for suggesting that Canada should become energy independent. Strange times we live in.
MaryInga 8 months ago
Nuts. People are to steward their own ecosphere....not be instructed to take their concerns half way around the world. But you have a point. The hideous wars Bush, Blair and other oil imperialists fought in the middle east has come back to haunt us...but using the horrific situations of the people there as a threat against Canadians isn't really germaine to the topic under consideration. It's right wing bait and switch.
water 8 months ago
Where do you get this "without incident" hokum? https://www.transmountain.com/spill-history
Hide Replies (4)
Bucadogg 8 months ago
The without incident is about tankers not pipelines. Your reply is how an activist argues, stay on topic this is about tankers.
Hide Replies (3)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Without pipelines there would be no tankers, so your point is moot.
Hide Replies (2)
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
Well there would be, they'd just be foreign tankers...the ones that we have far less regulatory control over.
Hide reply (1)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
They're ALL foreign tankers. You know that as well as I do.
Brenda Mark 8 months ago
If we continue to destroy our oceans and accelerate climate change, we'll be sacrificing the entire human race. What good is money when there us not enough food to go around, and you can't breathe the air or drink the water, and inhabitable land becomes scarce. Do I need to cite examples?
Hide reply (1)
West49th 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to moderation rules
West49th 8 months ago
Coastal communities benefit from the oil and gas industry. Its a big 'If' you're talking about. It will be ghost towns anyway if you shut down the Industry. Who will pay the bills. All your lovely ferries and fishing - who will be able to afford to come? Only foreigners.
BritishColumbianNotAlbertan 8 months ago
Typical Albertan comment. Cruise ships carry a fraction of the oil of a tanker, fishing vessels an amount not even relevent to mention, if a seiner runs aground it may pollute a a very small bay, if a tanker hits a rock it will pollute an area the size of Prince William Sound Alaska, where the Exxon Valdez disaster happened. American oil tanker traffic is way, way, out in the ocean, no rocks or reefs there, but the average Albertan knows nothing about the BC Coast, most knew nothing about it before this tanker port was proposed by them and most still know nothing about it 10 years later.
Hide Replies (4)
Doug McLeod 8 months ago
Actually what you would have to do to have any hope of being relevant is explain why tankers are only dangerous in BC. If such a plan is to be instituted, it must be Canada wide. A ban on tankers on the west coast - especially into Vancouver via the Trans-mountain facility brings them through a 25 mile wide Strait of Juan de Fuca. Tankers going into Montreal traverse a far longer and narrower, more dangerous route especially given the currents generated in the river. Having traveled both routes by ship, the east is far more dangerous. So if you enforce a ban on one, without the other, you aren't putting in place a Canadian plan, you are simply declaring an economic war on one part of the country. As well, one would have to explain how tankers can proceed up the Thames into London, and up/down the Hudson into New York, but expect Armageddon only on one coast in Canada. The decision would have no credibility and quite rightly be seen as indefensible.
Hide Replies (2)
Laurie Embree 8 months ago
Again. New infrastructure and new projects should now be based on green technology.Stop living in the past.
MaryInga 8 months ago
I think there's a flaw in you reasoning, and it is this. By extension we could argue that no tanker bans can go into effect unless there is a tanker ban world wide. Now I'm not expert enough to know if this would be a good thing or not, but I do know that it isn't going to happen.So it sounds to me like you are setting up a no win scenario for people supporting the tanker ban on the North West coast. And that's about as facetious as asking people concerned about climate change, "did you drive here in a car?" There is absolutely no reason why someone inside the car culture can't sound the warning of climate change; and people who live on that coast don't have to wait for Montrealers to act before they can do so.
West49th 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to moderation rules
SheilaPeters 8 months ago
The ban would/could not apply to international waters; US tankers don't pass through Hecate Strait, etc.
Hide Replies (3)
kevansears 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect others.Please refer to moderation rules
Hide Replies (2)
Laurie Embree 8 months ago
Oh moderator, wherefore art thou.
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
looking with partiality!
JpinBC 8 months ago
"You will need to shutdown American oil tanker traffic to get your way. Not going to happen"Really? Why not? Canada is fully within its rights as a sovereign nation to protect its coastal waters and ban any vessels that threaten them. The U.S. has imposed such restrictions when it has seen fit to do so and has stricter requirements for safe navigation of oil tankers in dangerous waters than Canada does. "To add to your concern there should be a full shutdown on all fishing in these waters, a total ban on tourism as this human traffic has a direct affect on the environment"This is an absurd "straw man" argument in that Brenda Mark was addressing only the dangers of tanker traffic, not tourist and fishing vessels, which are vastly smaller and more maneuverable within the tight quarters of these waters and which do not carry enormous quantities of substances that can destroy the marine environment. She did not even remotely hint at the idea of shutting down all human activity in the region and to suggest that doing so is the logical extension of her comments is absurd and counterproductive. The area is ill suited to tanker traffic, period. Allowing tanker traffic in this area, which is rife with extremely strong currents and prone to violent storms is to invite a disaster that would have catastrophic effects on the region. If your intent was to ridicule Brenda by saying she might as well include fishing and tourism in her ban, you are completely missing the point. If the ban is NOT imposed, that is what will ultimately destroy the fishing and tourist industries in the area.
Nklatt 8 months ago
Canada is a Carbon Negetive country. Scientists around the world refer to Canada as a Carbon Sink! Canadas boreal forests absorb more in 1 year than Canadians can produce in 10 years! This is a scientific fact, not a Facebook fiction!
Hide Replies (19)
JpinBC 8 months ago
Canada cannot take credit for being a carbon sink as a matter of policy. Canada happens to have been blessed by nature (and a relatively small population spread over a vast area) in that it has vast areas of forests. And, of course, there are timber companies quite determined to greatly reduce those forests -- as determined as the bitumen companies are in furthering dependence on a dirty, 20th century fuel source in a 21st century world that needs clean, sustainable energy above all else. As a matter of policy, Canada, and particularly Canada's oil interests have been anything but carbon negative. For the proponents of Canada's oil interests to claim a mandate to generate obscene amounts of greenhouse gases on the basis of forests that have been here since before humans set foot here is myopia of the highest order. We must be grateful for the trees and be careful stewards of them not use them as an excuse for the right to pollute further, because at the end of the day all the trees in Canada are not sufficient to prevent the continuing climate crisis. We must do more. And providing a permanent ban on further west coast pipelines and tanker traffic is a vital step in that direction.
Hide Replies (6)
Nklatt 8 months ago
Canadian Oilsands contribute 0.09% of the worlds CO2, and Canada contributes 1.6% of the worlds CO2. This means that even if Canada, as a country, ceased all contributions to CO2 emissions China would make up the difference literally in 18 days...Please explain to me how causing serious financial harm to Canadians is going to "save the planet"? Yes Canada can take credit for being a Carbon Sink! You said it yourself that we are fortunate enough to live in a large land mass with a smaller population. It's our country and I am proud of its land and the products we produce! Diversity does not mean destroying one part to raise the averages of the rest! Open those sea ways and allow our country to Prosper instead of increasing taxes to attempt cover the losses of poor decisions!
Hide Replies (5)
Brenda Mark 8 months ago
So then why should we ship bitumen, an unconventional fossil fuel, to Chinz so the y can increase their emissions. You're right though, in that 'diversity does not mean destroying one part to raise the averages of the rest'.....our coast should be left intact.
kevansears 8 months ago
Well said! Those who are wanting to shut down Canadian oil production are manipulators or being manipulated by bing oil to the south! Build the pipeline and ports for tankers to safely move our oil to market!
MaryInga 8 months ago
Bitumen is a junk fossil fuel.....but there's lots of it up there....and every new plant means more of those carbon sinks get clear cut and stacked for export. It's old technology...and an old dying technology at that. Tar might keep us on fossil fuel for 100 years, but at a terrible price. Let's stop talking about how small our contribution to the end of the Holocene is........and start working to be the go to nation for the renewable technology of the future. Diversity does not mean continuing in old cow paths just because we know the way....diversity means many new ways of doing things. One thing big Oil and Gas is not........is diverse. It's the status quo....the one horse petro state. We can't get off it fast enough.
Hide Replies (2)
Nklatt 8 months ago
First of all, bitumen is not tar. Tar can be created from petroleum, wood, coal or peat. But once again bitumen is NOT tar. If you feel that you can live without petroleum products, then I suggest you make that attempt...your renewable sources of energy all require petroleum products to exist! This is a fact! Before you cast judgement on these plants by stating that they require clear cutting, I'm sorry but you have been misinformed. In the early 1980s when bitumen was first processed, yes they did clear cut some areas of which 70% of the land was strip mined and has since been reclaimed. The plants that are built today have very little foot print on their surrounding environments. Is it perfect, nope nothing human related ever is! Is the environment perfect, no! Bitumen had been seeping into major northern waterways for centuries and humans have actually been cleaning it up. I don't believe oil and gas are as you say "the status quo", they just get the headlines in Canada because people that aren't from our country know that if Canada enters into the world energy markets, we will dominate strictly on the facts that we can actually produce it cheaper, safer and cleaner than any other place on earth! Before you place your rebuttals, take a minute and actually think about every item you use on a daily basis, whether it be a car, a phone, a computer, a TV, the products used to build your home, the needles to deliver medicine, cutlery, plates, clothing. Every manufacturing process on this planet uses petroleum products to make their products. When you state that we can't get off of it fast enough, even our ancestors used oil products from fish and animals and that was seeping up through the ground! It can be used responsibly and in Canada we lead the way in these processes. I've worked around the world in various petroleum fields during my career and believe me that there is not a country out there that has the rules/regulations or enforcement that Canada does! You want to save the planet, start with the biggest offenders and let Canada and her people prosper!
Hide reply (1)
MaryInga 8 months ago
Much of what you say is true....we are horribly dependent on products that a by-products of the oil industry. But to argue that this has been going on for centuries is disengenuous...which means bluntly put, its a lie.You can twist definitions so they fit your product, but whatever you want to call bitumen...oil isn't the most accurate label. Tar...or asphalt perhaps....is a more descriptive term, and it was what the oil industry itself used. Until a few years ago...when, my suspicion is, they realized they were going to have to 'tinker' with the heavy, non flowing crud....to get it to where it could be upgraded and refined cheaply enough for it to be worth their while.What your defence of bitumen leaves out is a lot. Let me try and recap briefly, its information easy enough to get, if you go to research sites instead of oil and gas sponsored ones.1. It's heavy on silica...so in pipes it acts like sandpaper. Ergo, leaks are more likely.2. To transport it they need to add gaseous hydrocarbons, like benzine, toluene, and the like. When a spill happens, as it has in Kalamazoo and a few other places, those noxious gases evaporate into the air, and dilbit reverts to bitumen, which sinks, sticks to everything, and is virtually unclean-up- able. Yes, we can cover it up, but for the natural world, spin is just BS dumped on the living organisms of the biosphere.3. If it does get to tidewater, its still an unupgraded, unrefined sludge. that is what we load in those super tankers....too big to fail, huh?...and off to Asia where the dirty work will be done turning it into a finished product...that will be shipped back here and called oil. The trail of this junk fuel having been hidden...off loaded we call it....onto China. What we get for the raw bitumen once it gets to tidewater, is the real question we should be asking............because I repeat: its' still not oil once it arrives there.4. No one talks much about the twinning that bitumen needs to reach tidewater for the next 100 years.......but fact is, there's two pipes. One to carry the dilbit west, another to bring the toxic gaseous hydrocarbons back to Alberta to be reused.5. The lies of these bitumen extractivists have been catching up with them. For west bound pipelines, its foreign markets that are going to bring Canada prosperity; for Energy East, its a freakin 'national unity project'. But everyone is pretty sure its the Bay of Fundy that will take it up the tailpipe. Why? We cant for the life of us locate the upgraders in eastern Canada, that would make refining at home possible. Lying is great, if the people are so ignorant you can get away with it. Capitalist entrepreneurs of a certain stripe do it all the time. But we have the internet, and solid independent researchers digging into Oil hype now. And once you find a few blatant lies, you lose faith in these 'world shakers'. Finally, your argument that we are so heavily invested in Oil and oils by-products, that we have 'no choice' but to build pipelines, and endure mega tankers is a bad one. Yes...we are currently in a bit of a monoculture where our energy is concerned. But if we keep digging ourselves deeper into that culture of the same, we're done.In the States, Exxon is facing court proceedings because of the extent to which it lied about climate change. The junk science its billions funded could have been used to do the smart thing and start the transition....but oh no....there's only one way to obscene riches for the oil corporations.....so they bulled and bullied on.Still, the truth is a hard thing to totally repress. Now more and more of us know it. WE MUST TRANSITION OFF FOSSIL FUEL, AND MUCH FASTER THAN WE'D HAVE HAD TO DO, IF EXXON AND IT'S BUDDIES HADN'T PROVED SO PSYCHOPATHIC.For Canada, that means slowing our in situ strip mining of our north. And I'm sorry, but strip mining the boreal is forever. Anybody who believes the science fiction of reclamation of wetlands and peat bogs....by the same rip and ship artists that took it to bedrock.........is not a farmer's daughter. An environmental illiterate is more likely. We don't do soil creation well. that's Nature's job. Research how long it takes her to make an inch, and then ask yourself if industry astro turf is going to be an improvement. Yes...we will likely have to use bitumen for some time to come.It's all the money they are willing to waste shipping it to Asia and back, all the risk to a land base that might survive what the climate is going to do to so much of the planet, that should be questioned. If we can build those mega tankers, twinned pipelines over dangerous and hard to access in the winter watersheds....we can upgrade and refine the damn stuff here. Then we'd all know how much fossil fuel goes into getting gasoline from a junk fossil fuel found plentifully in...and I underline it ....THE TARSANDS.
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
The boreal forest is being decimated by tar sands activity and massive forest fires. Next time you fly over it on your way to work, have a look out the window and see the destruction for yourself.
Hide Replies (10)
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
Please educate yourself: Disturbed oil sands surface minable area equaled to about 895 km2 in 2013 accounting for less than 1 per cent of total oil sands area and about 0.2 per cent of Alberta boreal forest which covers over 381,000 km2. Source: http://www.energy.alberta.ca/oilsands/791.asp
Hide Replies (8)
Brenda Mark 8 months ago
And how's the air and water quality in the area?
Hide Replies (4)
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
You can find detailed water quality testing results here on this govt of Alberta site. Just click on Water Quality on the left and then select the different stations to see them on the map, then click each station to see local results.http://osip.alberta.ca/map/Almost all water used in the process is now recycled. Check the govt of Canada info here:https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/energy/pdf/eneene/pubpub/pdf/11-%20OS-factsheet_Water%20Management-eng-February-2013.pdfWe should be proud of what Canadians can do to reduce both air and water pollution. We are far better than other jurisdictions in this regard. The world needs more Canada! :-)
Hide Replies (3)
JPierre33 8 months ago
Re H20: "Almost all water used in the process is now recycled." Unless 100% this is not acceptable.Re; Airhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-tars-sands-impact-on-air-pollution-found/
Hide reply (1)
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
Whenever I see the word "tar", I know it is not an objective, science-based source. Thanks anyway...
MaryInga 8 months ago
I suspect this is industry PR...because the last time I read anything on the topic, it was common knowledge that Alberta's water monitoring programs were inconsistent, and lacking in scientific rigor. David Schindler, a world renowned expert on water blew the whistle on that a few years ago.....and was almost hounded out of province if I'm not mistaken. Nor do I have any knowledge that the new government has had time to beef up the programs. Essentially, in Alberta, the industry has been monitoring itself.I'll leave it to you imaginations how that works....but if you have any doubts just ask CAPP. They are the go to apologists in this regard. For those of us who want the real skinny on water monitoring in Alberta, check Andrew Nikeforuk's work....he's an award winning, independent journalist.
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
With all this info at your fingertips, perhaps you can tell me how many square kilometres of boreal forest has been destroyed by forest fires due to the effects of climate change (Pine beetle infestation, etc.)?
Hide Replies (2)
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to moderation rules
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
A good long term history of the pine beetle here: http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/fire-insects-disturbances/top-insects/13397No info on climate change noted.
Jeanette 8 months ago
Not so:Oil sands mineable area is 0.2 percent ofCanada’s boreal forestCanada’s oil sands are the third largest proven deposit ofcrude oil in the world, with a reserve of 169 billion barrels.1The oil sands are found in Western Canada and are locatedwithin the boundaries of Canada’s boreal forest, whichstretches more than 5000 km (3100 mi.) from coast tocoast and covers about 30 percent of the country’s landmass. The total area of the oil sands that is accessiblethrough surface mining represents 0.2 percent of Canada’sboreal forest.2Source: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/energy/files/12-0608-Oil-Sands-Land-Use-and-Reclamation-eng.pdf
West49th 8 months ago
Comment does not add to the conversation. . Please refer to moderation rules
Energy_Exports_are_vital 8 months ago
Let's all move back to the caves. No CO2 emitting lights or flares, of course ! All immigrants to Canada: go home. Stop breathing, too.
Hide Replies (2)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to moderation rules
MaryInga 8 months ago
Why do people post non-sequitors that try to claim its all or nothing? It adds nothing to the discussion.
hambone 8 months ago
You do know that roughy 800 tankers a year travel safely down the west coast from the Alaskan North Slope to Port Angeles without incident right? It's only tankers that would benefit Canadians through taxes, jobs etc etc that would be banned. The Moratorium is truly a "shoot yourself in the foot policy" that only benefits our foreign competitors while doing nothing substantial for climate change.
Hide Replies (2)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Are they coming up Douglas Channel? Are they coming into English Bay and Burrard Inlet? Do you know the BC coast at all?
Hide reply (1)
hambone 8 months ago
Yes I do actually. About 100 tankers a year leave the current Kinder Morgan facility in Burrard Inlet a year and have done so safely for 50 years. If you knew the waters of BC you would know that due to tides and currents the Gulf Islands, Victoria etc would be threatened if a spill happened anywhere near Port Angeles and its surrounding waters but that hasn't happened. In fact Washington state has way more rigorous regulations than BC but they allow tankers because they understand the risks and just how rigorously safe the industry is.
Energy_Exports_are_vital 8 months ago
Do you drive a car ? Do you use plastic ? Do you take a ferry or a plane sometimes ? They all need oil ! Exxon Valdez was 30 years ago. It was ingle hulled. No online NAV system. No local pilot on board. Plus drunk captain.Today all tankers can be mandated double hulled. Modern NAV system. Pilot on board. Accompanied by 2 pilots on external tow boats. Going 3-5 km/h. That is very safe.
Hide Replies (2)
Brenda Mark 8 months ago
I've been asked those questions before. Driving a car or using plastic does not make me feel like a hypocrit. It makes me yearn for a society where there are viable alternatives. And that ain't gonna happen until we stop putting all our eggs in the fossil fuel basket.In response to your Valdez comment: Unforeseen adverse events happen. Should we leave our future to chance?
Hide reply (1)
West49th 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - Comment does not add to the conversation. Please refer to moderation rules
Linda Patterson 8 months ago
I believe that the most important issues the Government should address in its plan to formalize a crude oil tanker moratorium are as follows:The Government should follow through on its commitment to formalize a permanent, comprehensive and legislated ban on oil tankers on the coast of British Columbia.The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Aact of Parliament.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.t
Hide reply (1)
West49th 8 months ago
No, no, no, no, and no. Total ridiculous and no reason for this outrageous idea.
Fletchmo 8 months ago
We should make sure that we put in place a moratorium that is legally solid and permanent.
Hide reply (1)
West49th 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to moderation rules
wagnerg 8 months ago
I do not believe a crude oil tanker moratorium on the West Coast of Canada is either necessary or fair. Canada already allows crude oil tanker shipments on the East Coast, where there have been no significant spills for decades. The West Coast is no more valuable, or "pristine", than the East Coast.Residents of the West Coast have been using hydrocarbon based fuels for many years, and will continue to rely on fuel transportation by sea, especially in isolated communities. Unless those residents intend to stop using oil and gasoline themselves, it is hypocritical of them to deny those same energy sources to developing countries in Asia.Canada MUST move its crude oil to offshore markets to maintain our national standard of living, to provide jobs and business opportunities, to generate revenue, and to reduce our reliance on the American marketplace. Having only one customer for our discounted domestic production is foolhardy.Canada MUST stop importing crude oil from countries with repressive regimes and links to terrorism. Buying crude oil from countries with little or no environmental regulation, and little or no respect for human rights, while deliberately impoverishing our own country is ridiculous.Canada already enjoys a well-established and effective marine transportation system. Shippers have already committed to improving aids to navigation where necessary, providing escort tugs and new oil spill response bases, and increasing communication and engagement with local communities. If the Canadian Coast Guard requires expanded ocean-going capacity to monitor performance and enforce regulations, the Government of Canada should provide it for all coastal shipping on the West, East, and Arctic coasts.The argument against Canadian crude oil tanker shipments that focuses on the potential for increased GHG emissions is fatuous. Other oil producing countries are increasing their production and transportation to developing markets, and global demand for the product is expected to continue to increase. Many of those countries have no carbon regulation whatsoever, and many have no environmental assessment or regulatory systems in place. Canada does. Denying Canadian crude a place in that market while allowing our competitors to meet that demand is not intelligent, and will have no influence on GHG emissions worldwide.
Hide reply (1)
West49th 8 months ago
Here, here! Well stated and so true. I totally agree with you. Perhaps we should be talking about impeaching Trudeau as he is a traitor to Canada's interests.
Nadia 8 months ago
I am in strong support of a legislated oil tanker ban on BC's North Coast (including Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound). I currently live in Prince George and have a strong connection to the north coast and the watersheds that it is connected to. A healthy coast provides sustainable jobs and economic opportunities for communities. Without a legislated oil tanker ban, these existing jobs are all at risk. Let’s invest in protecting and expanding the sustainable job opportunities in northern BC – such as the wild salmon economy, the nature-based/eco-tourism industry and renewable energy opportunities. The majority of British Columbians are opposed to oil tankers on our coast. In order to ensure the coast is protected the ban must not have an expiry date, it must apply to ships carry oil in bulk as cargo, and it must be legislated. Thanks for advancing this important legislation.
Terry Brown 8 months ago
that the plan be legislated with no sunset clause
Andrea Carol Anderson 8 months ago
Yes, a thousand times yes, to a law that keeps BC's sensitive and biodiverse northern waters and the territories of Coastal First nations free from oil tankers.What's important:- The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament,- this legislated moratorium must not contain a sunset clause orexpiry date,- it must a minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the PM and the Cdn. Coast Guard, and- it must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while still allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.-
myohemas 8 months ago
Why is the Government "formalizing" the crude oil tanker moratorium? Where is the discussion on whether or NOT there should be a moratorium at all? It seems that a decision has already been made. Something of this significance which affects all Canadians, should be brought forth for discussion in a very public and transparent way. There are ways of protecting the environment while not crippling the economy. Oil tankers have been traversing our coastlines for many decades, safely and can continue to do so. Why is the east coast allowed to bring in tankers yet the communities of Northern Columbia are being denied the same opportunities. Environmental protection and economic development are not mutually exclusive.
Hide Replies (3)
Energy_Exports_are_vital 8 months ago
Indeed. Where is the proposed ban on oil imports by boat into E-Canada ? Shut down Quebec's Bombardier plane and Ontario's car industry too. Far too much CO2 emission by these planes and cars !
West49th 8 months ago
Totally agree with you. Has the Government nothing better to do. Perhaps there are more offices to redecorate?
Jenetta 8 months ago
Pure and simple. Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline is not going to be built. Diluted bitumen is impossible to clean up from the ocean floor if there was a spill. Hecate Strait and the waterways on the Northern Coast are treacherous at the worst of times especially in the winter.
West49th 8 months ago
This is a totally ridiculous idea. Do you really want to ostracize the West. We are getting fed up out here with the treatment we receive. All the voices of doom and gloom are so discouraging and seem to get the main ear of Government. Yes we value our environment and our beautiful coastline of British Columbia but we are a resource rich province and country. Let us build the pipelines and keep the economy strong. No moratorium on tankers. Hold them to a high standard of regulation. Do you think you are going to legislate the American shipping down the coast? Who is behind wanting to shut down the oil and gas industry. Is Trudeau a secret member of the Tides Foundation or other environmental lobby group from the States. Him and his buddy Obama perhaps? Trudeau, do not be a traitor to Canada and the West coast.
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
This whole this stinks like Tides Foundation!
Bevelyn 8 months ago
Enforce the safety and environmental requirements currently in place--some of the most stringent in the world--and then support and abet the export of our crude oil resources.
Islandgirl 8 months ago
We need a federally legislated permanent tanker ban. The risks are too great. Clean up is a myth.
ProudAlbertan 8 months ago
If all oil tanker traffic is to be banned of the west coast are we then going to ban all traffic on the east coast as well as all off shore oil drilling and production? An under water blow out such as the Deepwater Horizon accident would cause much more devastation then a surface oil spill from a modern tanker.
MaxK 8 months ago
Seems like a short sighted reaction to an environmental concern without looking at alternatives to the problem and evaluating the true risk/reward. I would like to see the analysis that I hope has been done on this. What's the true risk (likelihood and consequences)? What's the economic impact to Canada of such a ban? What's the benefit? Does this decision make sense?Many questions that have not been answered as of yet. What type of tanker ban is being proposed? Oil only or LNG as well? Is it a complete ban on all coastal water way or are their gaps, around current tanker ports such a Prince Rupert? What does it mean for current tanker traffic? Will it now be banned? How will the government handle the risk of tankers that operate outside of Canadian jurisdiction limits going from Alaska to the lower 48 states?This doesn't seem to align with the recent Federal Government approval of a LNG plant at Prince Rupert.This process, the short time for response as well as the secrecy around it seems like the Federal Government have already made a decision on this issue and wants to give the illusion of a consultative transparent process.After all the promises during the last election on Federal Government transparency I am dismayed that this issue seems to be lacking in any form of transparency.
Hide reply (1)
West49th 8 months ago
Very good points. And many crucial questions raised. Why is there suddenly such a need for this moratorium? Trudeau is a dangerous man.
ProudAlbertan 8 months ago
As a proud Albertan, I would like to purpose a complete and total ban of all lumber products from BC. The trucks and trains hauling these large loads are potentially extremely dangerous. If an accident were to occur many lives could be lost, not to mention the large amount of GHGs released if an uncontrolled fire were to break out. This is totally unacceptable.
Hide Replies (2)
Energy_Exports_are_vital 8 months ago
Plus ban on oil tankers into St. Lawrence on East Coast !!!
West49th 8 months ago
God don't give Trudeau any more stupid ideas. I hear you though!
cy 8 months ago
Safety in the inside passage.
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
a little more please--what are you saying?
BRMoule 8 months ago
I believe in the safe transportation of oil on the westcoast should be the government's top priority. The protection of the Canadian economy should also be a top priority. After we all need hospitals, schools, roads and other important infrastructures.
cwrench 8 months ago
First, there is a consensus among the vast majority of climate scientists: We have to keep 80 percent of the fossil-fuel reserves that we know about underground. If we don’t—if we dig up the coal and oil and gas and burn them—we will overwhelm the planet’s physical systems, heating the Earth far past the red lines drawn by scientists and governments. It’s not “we should do this,” or “we’d be wise to do this.” Instead it’s simpler: “We have to do this.”Second, it is virtually impossible to clean up an oil spill on the ocean even in calm waters. Researchers estimate less than 10% is ever recovered. Many scientists describe such efforts as 'prime-time theatre.' Yet the farce continues.Third, Several reports echoe many of the conclusions reached by former CIBC economist Jeff Rubin in his recent report on the future of the tar sands. It called pipeline expansion an economic folly: "As one of the most costly oil sources in the world, the resource is also one of the most vulnerable to plunging oil prices," wrote Rubin. "Improvement, no matter how impressive, in either its own carbon emissions or in Canada's overall emissions performance, will not remedy that vulnerability in any meaningful sense." Fourth - It is estimated the pacific coast of BC generates over $2Bn dollars a year from fisheries, tourism and related industry which rely on a healthy ocean environment. It makes no economic sense, it makes no environmental sense and it is utterly irresponsible to continue with any of the pipeline projects which industry is trying to foist on the citizens of BC and the world. Our governments have a legal and moral responsibility to shut down these disasters before they become a reality.
Hide Replies (2)
kevansears 8 months ago
What about the economic disasters that a decision like this will create--where is the moral responsibility in that?
cfalconer 8 months ago
Totally agree! Research shows that years after a marine oil spill, the environment has not recovered.
Jnel 8 months ago
Some general comments: - there are over 600 comments. This process of reading all and then ranking comments is challenging. Would rather complete a survey. - yes, support a moratorium. Canada needs to become a leader in high tech and green energy. Not taking action now and continuing to grow fossil fuel infrastructure is ridiculous with the knowledge that we have regarding the very significant impacts of climate change.
John Smythe 8 months ago
The proposed ban would lock in Canada's natural resources. In the past these resources have provided a large and important economic benefit to Canada. The export of natural resources has contributed greatly to our Standard of living and provided huge revenue to Governments and benefits to all Canadians including Aboriginals. There are few if any tanker issues in the past and the low risk of incidents must be taken into account. A tanker ban would damage the Canadian economy severely and also damage Canada's international trade interests.
samrp 8 months ago
As someone who has been lucky enough to spend a good deal of time in the north coast, I have seen the impact that smaller ships have had in these rugged, fragile, important waterways.That said, I can assure you this moratorium will only be effective if it addresses all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. This moratorium can not be formalized as a bandaid solution that falls away when convenient. This area has been important to coastal communities, wildlife, and landscapes, and thus - our entire economy, for time immemorial. It's importance will never fade. In fact, in the face of our current situation, it's value as an intact and protected region has increased drastically. As such, this moratorium must not have a sunset clause or expiry date if it is to be taken seriously and if it is to serve its intended purpose.Further over, while still allowing necessary shipments of fuel to reach coastal communities, this plan must prohibit ships carrying crude or refined oil in bulk as cargo.
Anthonygervais 8 months ago
I am a lifelong resident of the Pacific West coast and I strongly support a permanent ban on Oil Tanker traffic.This Legislation should include:It being legislated by an Act of Parliament.Legislation should not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.It must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.It must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying crude or refined oil in bulk as cargo, including in particular persistent oil, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.
Des Belton 8 months ago
With respect for the engineer from Alberta who posted the comment 2 previous to this one, I believe that this is the time to apply engineering skills to new, sustainable forms of energy, tidal or even low impact, short half life nuclear for example. I was trained as a biologist/ecologist and live near the coast in BC.
Des Belton 8 months ago
We need to protect the environment. A tanker spill is inevitable. Doubling or tripling the Kinder Morgan pipeline and holding tank or processing facilities is foolhardy in such a major earthquake prone area. When the big one comes ( and it is overdue) the environmental damage will be irreversible. Vancouver will be unlivable; no reconstruction will take place. Fraser river salmon runs will be forever destroyed. The Fraser river estuary will no longer be a nursery for smolts and feeding ground for migrating birds, but an ecological desert, spreading pollution all through the Straits of Georgia and Juan de Fuca. The only way to avoid this is to ban more oil export anywhere along our BC coast.
Terry Macartney 8 months ago
This is of course political nonsense! Everyday tankers come from Alaska down the West Coast into refineries at Anacortes, which can be seen from Victoria. Nobody says a word about this! However I do agree that tankers should not probably be allowed to leave Northern BC during the winter months November -February. Further, all tankers should be tethered, double-hulled, piloted, and leave at low tide, to minimise any risks.
Hide reply (1)
Energy_Exports_are_vital 8 months ago
Indeed. Peole always bring up Exxon Valdez. Exxon Valdez was 30 years ago. It was ingle hulled. No online NAV system. No local pilot on board. Plus drunk captain.Today all tankers can be mandated double hulled. Modern NAV system. Pilot on board. Accompanied by 2 pilots on external tow boats. Going 3-5 km/h. That is very safe.
Yvon Raoul 8 months ago
More than 400 tankers, bigger than our regular ferries? This is not something my family wants to see in Vancouver or anywhere along the coast. The short or long term risks are obvious to any one who knows the history of tanker spills...especially when loaded with dil-bit. Increasing tanker facilities doesn't mean that it will be facilitate economic development in the Lower Mainland. Quite the opposite if there is a risk of increasing pollution and maritime trafic in the Georgian Strait. Who will pay the cost of a disaster? K.M.? Their liability is limited to pipelines: tankers? will they cover the cost of a spill?
Hide reply (1)
Energy_Exports_are_vital 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - this was a duplicate comment. Please refer to moderation rules
gerostala 8 months ago
It is critical to make sure we do not have future disasters of crude oil spill like that of the Exxon Valdez. Any marine conveyances carrying crude oil near coastal or inland waters should only operate during known weather friendly times. There should also be special safety checks to qualify eligible carriers; these checks may include extra navigator knowledge testing, pilot vessel assistance when docking, scheduling any docking to avoid known salmon run times, and recording mechanism to know which vessels are navigating the waters
Hide reply (1)
Energy_Exports_are_vital 8 months ago
Exxon Valdez was 30 years ago. It was ingle hulled. No online NAV system. No local pilot on board. Plus drunk captain.Today all tankers can be mandated double hulled. Modern NAV system. Pilot on board. Accompanied by 2 pilots on external tow boats. Going 3-5 km/h. That is very safe.
EN99 8 months ago
Please support CANADIAN OIL All that oppose Tanker Traffic – You are hypocritical. Please recycle your phone, computer or any other device that you are using to post these comments. These devices are derived from plastic or petrochemicals (oil). Along with that, please discard any clothing you have that is polyester oh and cotton too, because the production of it uses oil. Oh and the Microwave, Fridge, Stove etc. As well stop using anything electric. The wires are coated in plastic. All the food you eat. It is not possible to keep up with the demand without oil. The world will starve. Medication? Stop using that as well. It is not possible to manufacture, bottle and distribute it without oil. Basically you will have to go back to living like a cave man/woman. Life expectancy will return to about half of what you expect.CANADA has impeccable records regarding environmental care in the transportation of oil products. If CANADA shuts down the Transportation of our oil we will have to obtain it from other countries in a roundabout way when you go and purchase your Smart Phone you will be supporting oil countries that care nothing about the environment or human rights. Try searching on your PHONE or COMPUTER Nigerian Oil or Saudi Arabian Human Rights. Bring up the images. This is the alternative to CANADIAN OIL.The world is not perfect. Perhaps one day if we CANADIANS as an innovative nation - lead the way to improve the things we need and ‘desire’ - by way of Higher Environmental Standards. If we can get our product to the world in a more safe and responsible way the world will be less dependent on oil from countries that just do not care as much as us CANADIANS,Please support CANADIAN OIL
RealFacts 8 months ago
Negative impact on all of Canada's energy industry. Shutting in our major resources from overseas export. Curtailing our economy. For trumped up reasons. Publicizing Canada's Excellent tanker safety record and strong protections. Fight the misinformation.
dondelia 8 months ago
Visited Vancover Island & Brit Col twice (coming from Luxembourg Europe). Knowing that since Exxon Valdez, damage not yet completely absorbed after so many years, no company can pretend giving enough garantees that this not happening again. Keep your country free of another catastrophee
MaryInga 8 months ago
I am in favour of a moratorim on crude oil tankers on our north Pacific coast, and I want it to be a strong one, not something that is temporary window dressing for political purposes. Anyone who has bothered to do some research knows what bitumen is, what dilbit is, that the dilbit returns to its non liquid state before it is loaded on those tankers...and the light hydrocarbons that made it dilbit for its high pressure pipeine ride over our mountains, are returned to Alberta to be recycled. We all know that the waters of the inland passage can see some rough seas....and we can imagine what would happen it the raw bitumen spilled.Our North Pacific coast is among the most fertile on earth...it is also one of the most isolated coastlines. Our salmon, and our whales are worth more than this questionable export market....and should be preserved for future generations. Please Prime Minister Trudeau, fulfill your election promise and establish a strong and permanent moratorium on heavy oil tankers.
dianave 8 months ago
The whole world is moving away from fossil fuels and towards clean technology. Clean water is becoming more valuable than fossil fuels. We need to protect our clean water and habitat, ban crude oil tankers and throw ourselves into renewable energy. Why invest in yesterday's fuel when it's killing us and our planet?
Hide Replies (2)
MaryInga 8 months ago
Particularly since its far from clear how bitumen, which sells for around 15 bucks a barrel, and needs both upgrading and refining, can be profitable in the short run. And heaven help us, if they want our tax dollars to build these pipelines because they believe there's enough tar there to last 100 years. The planet simply can't survive that kind of long term fantasy....oil needs to be seen as a transitional fuel...which will fade in importance as renewables come on stream. And for that.........why not keep it close to where it will be used, instead of running it around the world a couple of times. It makes no sense.
kevansears 8 months ago
The whole world, where are you living?
kevansears 8 months ago
For those who have criticized some of the links shared as "Out of Date" here is a current article well worth considering..."Ask any person in a hip café in downtown Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal to explain the relationship between renewable energy and fossil fuels and there’s a good chance you’ll hear a response like this: “We need to ban all fossil fuels right away and switch to using only renewables, which are abundant and will save us all from sure destruction.” Not only do you and I both know this is completely wrong, but so does Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Does Trudeau promote renewable, clean energy as a key piece of our future energy supply? Sure, he does. But even he talks about an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy development. During his April visit to the UN in New York to sign the Paris climate treaty, he clearly explained that, for Canada, “additional oil production would co-exist with cleaner technology, and more resources [would be] spent on energy innovation.”"Read on...http://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2016/09/to-make-progess-with-oil-renewables-and-ethical-trade-we-need-pragmatism-and-problem-solving/
Cheryl Macgregor 8 months ago
I live in BC and I appreciate the coastline. I am not willing to risk the salmon fishery, the wildlife (orcas, humpbacks) tourism for the oilsands and tankers off our coast. I heard Justin Trudeau state "no tankers" and that is what I expect, no tankers. BC is not the sacrificial lamb for oil interests of Alberta or China. I am asking the federal government to place a moratorium on crude oil tankers. This means an act of parliament that can't be walked back. I have asked before and I'll ask again, if we want clean energy why not do what Pierre Trudeau did back in the 70's. Offer government grants to households who want to refit their homes to clean energy. It created industries then and jobs then and it can now.
Hide Replies (26)
kevansears 8 months ago
And what about our cars and trucks should there be a grant program to retrofit them with peddles or sails...?
Hide Replies (25)
JpinBC 8 months ago
How about rather than shipping the oil halfway around the world to profit some Chinese company we simply refine it here and let Canadians use it to fuel their cars and trucks? Would that satisfy you?
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Perhaps you haven't noticed that there are many electric automobiles on the roads already. A solar-powered aircraft has already circumnavigated the Earth, and it's only a matter of time before the technology allows all travel to be fossil fuel-free. Maybe the multinational oil and gas corporations should be turning their efforts into new green technology instead of flogging their old dead horse.
Hide Replies (17)
kevansears 8 months ago
So what generates the power to recharge all those batteries and how much oil related products go into producing all the pieces to make your battery cars--not that they aren't good just looking for a realistic approach!
Hide Replies (11)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Speaking only for myself........solar power.
Hide Replies (10)
kevansears 8 months ago
Missed the second part of my question..."how much oil related products go into producing all the pieces"?
Hide Replies (6)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
I don't know, but I'm sure you're going to tell me.
Hide Replies (5)
kevansears 8 months ago
Probably hard to know for sure but a lot would not be an exaggeration...So until our world is willing to stop being out of control consumers, we will be using oil for a long time--lets be smart and responsible in that use!
Hide Replies (4)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
When do you suppose the multinational oil corporations and our governments are going to allow us to stop using fossil fuels?
Hide Replies (3)
kevansears 8 months ago
unlikely never--or until there in no more to use
Hide Replies (2)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Finally.......an honest answer!
Hide reply (1)
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
Please provide the info source that shows how that solar is economically and technically viable. For example, Canada is the highest consumer of energy in the world at 11,879 Kw per household per year (not because we are bad people, but simply because of our climate). Also I see at best half of electricity being covered via solar for a household, but I don't see any people using it for heating, other than heating water for consumption. So definitely it could offset electricity use, but other sources of energy are still required. With at 20 year payback per average solar array (the selling company's numbers so likely longer in reality given our latitude and snow), I'll be holding off on my purchase until I see more favorable options. But by all means please provide any research that you have that shows this as a viable solution.
Hide reply (1)
Laurie Embree 8 months ago
I have solar on my roof that pays all my electricity bills and a bit of my neighbours. It cost me all of my mom's inheritance and their were NO subsidies for it. What I am saying is that we need to head in a new direction, away from Oil and Gas, and if we don't make the first faltering baby steps we will never get there. Our government needs to start supporting this new direction and stop putting all their subsidies into the old technologies that are harming us and the future of this planet.No big changes come without problems and a few steps backwards and falling down and getting up and trying again but we are well on our way. If people that don't want to see this change happen would just stop trying to knock it over it will come faster. This baby WILL learn to walk!
People need a life 8 months ago
Solar power would require millions of hectares of solar panels. Oh ya I forgot all the toxic batteries to store the solar power when it is overcast ( we don't live in a desert) or at nite.
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
Hide Replies (4)
kevansears 8 months ago
Thanks for posting this...so much of this green stuff only considers what we see and experience here as the end users not the up-the-chain realities of industry in places like China--I am interested in products that require an all-green process along with long-term sustainability and retainability! How much are we dumping because of the relatively short life expectancies. Eastern Europe used to be a hug industrial polluter in the early years after the Soviet Breakup but with EU integration has become much cleaner in recent years."Currently, green technologies are defined as green only in terms of the uses to which they are put, according to Lipsig-Mumme. “For a technology to be seriously considered ‘green,’ the processes by which the tech is produced and the ways in which it operates, must also be ‘green.’”(See web-link above)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Yes Chuck, I read your link and it's dated. Try finding some new info, such as recent news articles right here on CBC. I'm sorry, but I must get ready to go to work now. I'll check back with you later.
Hide Replies (2)
kevansears 8 months ago
Don't you mean... CBC the Liberal Voice!
kevansears 8 months ago
Hey there Virginia Smith, how is this for a current article..."The federal Liberal cabinet has approved construction of an $11.4-billion terminal to export liquefied natural gas from northern British Columbia, despite increased greenhouse gas emissions and concerns about local ecological impacts on salmon."http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/pacific-northwest-lng-decision/article32092033/Wouldn't this kind of make all this chatter about permanently shutting down the North to Tankers Mute! Wouldn't want to be close if one of those tankers ever blew!
Laurie Embree 8 months ago
They're called EVs. Now there is an investment that makes sense, and doesn't destroy the oceans.
Hide Replies (4)
kevansears 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - this was a duplicate comment. Please refer to moderation rules
kevansears 8 months ago
Can you answer the second part of my question... "how much oil related products go into producing all the pieces"?
Hide Replies (2)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Again........google is your friend.
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to moderation rules
MaryInga 8 months ago
Cute comments aren't helpful, but there is already a person retrofitting old cars to electric, in Calgary of all places, and last I looked into it, it appears we have an excess of cheap electricity from all the overshoot that's gone on planning for rapid expansion of just about every kind of fossil fuel exportation. So of course, weaing ourself off the internal combustion engine could be a source of many more new jobs. Let's get on with it.
Cathy Fortin 8 months ago
The most important issue at hand is the will of the people of British Columbia. There is overwhelming opposition to oil tankers and as people grow stronger in their convictions opposition will surely grow.
Hide Replies (3)
lloydmendonsa 8 months ago
I do not agree with this so called will of the people as many of them do not understand what a tanker is and tend to blindly follow the call of the activists of which BC has the most.Such activists have their own hidden agendas and in many cases are constituents of special interest groups from across the border
Hide reply (1)
Cathy Fortin 8 months ago
You do the people of BC a disservice. I consider myself an activist and talk to people about issues such as these every day. I have no affiliation with anyone 'across the border' but speak for myself and my own convictions...which are that we are collectively against more tanker traffic. The people who are not against it are the ones with (or hoping for) jobs working for oil companies. These are the employees who do not or cannot develop new skills to move themselves out of this destructive field.
Jan 8 months ago
Opposition to oil tankers in BC waters is very strong because BC people know that an oil spill is not reversible. That is assuming the oil tanker owners will cleanup instead of fighting in courts to get out of the moral and legal obligation to clean up their mess.
RyanC72 8 months ago
Any consideration of a moratorium should be measured against the need to open up markets for western Canadian oil and gas production. It is imperative that Canada's energy products be allowed to reach international markets. It is in the best interests of Canada and the western provinces to work to find solutions to moving oil and gas out of Canada. The focus should be on safe and dependable transportation polices, with efforts being put into monitoring and control versus opposition to continued development and transportation.
Lordaren 8 months ago
We DEFINITELY support Canadian oil and gas leaving our shores the Canadian way!!!! For Canadians benefit!
hambone 8 months ago
No moratorium. To implement one is naive. Northern BC desperately needs investment and jobs. With our government handing out billions of our tax dollars to buy votes through political pet projects Canada needs the taxes that the oil industry produces. We have no God given right to our wealth and quality of life. We need to keep building the industries and jobs that will ensure our children's future. Our competitive advantage, nationally, is natural resources. We should not allow local, smug, self interested parties to threaten the overall economic security of our country - especially when the recovery of the eastern manufacturing economy is simply not recovering.
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
You nailed it...bunch of crazy "self interested parties to threaten the overall economic security of our country"No moratorium!
Marielloyd 8 months ago
Coastal oil tanker shipment is a disaster waiting to happen, so the precautionary principle is the standard to apply in this case. The defence of the Great Bear rainforest must occur by sea as on land, and tankers are the threat by sea. A moratorium on tankers must be legated by Parliament, with no expiry date, and needs at least to comprehend Queen Charlotte Sound, Dixon Entrance and Hecate Strait, already established by the P.M. in the Mandate Letter to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. All ships carrying crude or refined oil in bulk as cargo must be forbidden passage on B.C.'s North Coast.
JennyKirby 8 months ago
Protecting the Great Bear rainforest and BC's North Coast from oil spills should be a priority. A moratorium on oil tankers should include the following key points in order to ensure that our forest an coastline stays protected.It must be legislated by an Act of Parliament. It must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date. It must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. It must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying crude or refined oil in bulk as cargo, including in particular persistent oil, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.
DouglasChannelWatch 8 months ago
We have great appreciation that this Liberal Government recognizes the need to protect the Central and Northcoast of British Columbia first and foremost from unnecessary shipments of oil on and along our Coast. Just as the BC Government has committed to the protection of The Great Bear Rainforest by land, the Federal Government legislated oil tanker ban would ensure the protection of the estuaries and delicate shores of The Great Bear Rainforest by Sea.The Alberta oil sands bitumen and crude oils according to science experts and studies is largely unrecoverable in nature and would do irreparable harm to wildlife and the human way of life. In 1985 there was enacted a voluntary tanker exclusion zone created to help avoid potential oil spills, this must now be written in a comprehensive manner to reflect today's needs and protections for all time and made into Law.To properly protect these Northern waters and coastline for future generations we submit to you our thoughts and hopes for this oil tanker moratorium:1) The oil tanker moratorium (ban) must be legislated by an act of Parliament. There must not be any form of end clause or expiry date. Creating and updating Marine Safety measures will never be able to replace a moratorium as bitumen and crude oils cannot be mitigated in a satisfactory way to protect the Environment.2) The legislated oil tanker moratorium (ban) must cover Hecate Straight, Dixon Entrance, Queen Charlotte Sound and an area sufficiently west of Haida Gwaii to a point where a disabled tanker can be reached safely to prevent its drift onto any part of the Haida Gwaii Coast.3) The legislated oil tanker moratorium (ban) must include vessels carrying, as cargo; crude oils, persistent oils, and oil/water emulsions of hydrocarbons . The vessels subject to the moratorium should not carry more than 50,000 barrels in any one vessel singly or in combination of any of the above types of oils and yet still allow the continued supply of fuels needed by Coastal Communities. Furthermore those vessels presently supplying Coastal Communities must have in place support services that would be capable of timely marine spill response should they be in a position to require it. Legislating an oil tanker ban sooner than later will help move Canada forward with its Paris COP21 commitment in leading the world towards a low-carbon, climate resilient economy and in achieving sustained emissions reductions worldwide.Sincerely,Douglas Channel WatchKitimat, BC (see the IOPC description of ‘Contributing Oils’ on page 4 of documentservices.iopcfunds.org/meeting-documents/download/docs/1718/lang/en/ which identifies the oil types and the recommended testing method for persistent oil which should be included in the moratorium)
Lisa 8 months ago
I believe that we should ban oil tankers from our coastal regions. A moratorium is essential in order for our Canadian Parliament to create laws that are not only permanent, but that will uphold a continuing respect for future generations who depend upon a healthy environment. I agree with the call for a ban on ships that carry bulk oil in their cargo. I also believe that we should listen with open ears and hearts to our First Nations residents of this beautiful province.
CMalaka 8 months ago
•The oil tanker ban must be legislated by an Act of Parliament. •It must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, the Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound. •It must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date. •It must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.
SabBow 8 months ago
I believe the most important issue here is protection of pristine ecological areas combined with a broader move to a low-carbon economy. This must be paired with investment into clean green jobs for Canadians. This moratorium must be finalized with an expiry date, after which the moratorium would turn into a ban of bulk crude exports via tanker (with allowance for coastal delivery of fuel to remote communities). If Canada is serious about moving towards a low carbon economy, we must address both manufacturing of energy and how it is delivered.
Hide Replies (5)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
I agree, with one exception: that remote northern communities receive assistance in switching from diesel generators to renewable energy. It's already being done in some communities up there.
Hide Replies (4)
kevansears 8 months ago
Do I get a nice big grant for my home--solar panels on the roof and then sell excess back to BC Hydro?
Hide Replies (3)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Comment irrelevant to the topic. . Please refer to moderation rules
kevansears 8 months ago
Not sure what you wrote Virginia that the moderator deemed it irrelevant, but, you did mention "switching in you post above!''Repost your thoughts and see if they leave it up long enough to read and comment...
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
Given the at least 25 year payback for solar panels, I'll be waiting for a big grant as well.
LStrombe 8 months ago
The government disclose the results of it's economic impact study so we can all fully understand the impact a moratorium would have on our economy. If an economic impact study has not been done, then that should be the first step. It should also examine the safety record and volume of tanker traffic that has been moving for many years in our waters. It's important to protect our environment but actions taken should be informed and not as a result of pressure from one side or the other.
Hide reply (1)
Jeanette 8 months ago
good point.
efulton 8 months ago
I am a BC resident and support the tanker moratorium to protect our coast waters. I realize that the transition to sustainable fuels will not be easy as we are very reliant on oil. The oil companies are paid large subsides by the government , what about redirecting some of those monies to retrain oil workers in fields of sustainable energy so that there is less loss of employment and economic repercussions?
Hide reply (1)
Jeanette 8 months ago
Actually oil companies are not heavily subsidized, but contribute 10's billions into the economy. So there are not any subsidies to move to other industries. See: http://energynow.ca/anti-oil-crowd-says-fossil-fuels-subsidized-eliminated-heres-problem-statement-david-yager-yager-management/
michellemarcus 8 months ago
The moratorium must be permanent!
Elizabeth Thorne 8 months ago
Global warming - make this permanent. Preservation of untouched wilderness waters - there's no way to clean up more than 15% of any oil spill - 5% - 10% is more common - there's no chance of a spill if there are no tankers. Preservation of an important food source - for natives and non-natives alike.
Hide reply (1)
Jeanette 8 months ago
source please
Roseanne 8 months ago
As a resident of Canada & B.C. I believe we need to support Alberta at this point.I have been to Ft. MacMurray & out to the sites. I have seen re -claymation done there & it is impressive.We need to get our oil safely East & West by pipeline. We need to use our own oil in Canada! Whatever that takes, we need to do it!Let's act like Canadians & support All of Canada.
M Jansen 8 months ago
The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament. The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date. The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.
Renee Titterton 8 months ago
There should be no tankers whatsoever shipping crude oil and bitumen in BC waters.
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
I think this has been pointed out before, but I'll say it again: It's diluted bitumen, NOT crude oil that Big Oil is trying to push across our country.If Trudeau and McKenna don't know that, they shouldn't be in an authoritive position.
Denise 8 months ago
Make it ABSOLUTE. No more tankers! Its the 21st century we need to reduce our energy consumption and use only renewable energies going forward. If you love this planet?! And No more foreign Tankers in Canadian Waters. Because no one can prevent accidents and our Oceans are too important to risk.
morrisoncreek 8 months ago
The environment as the bonds applied and the remedies are never enough to bring things back to pristine and the world is moving away from fossil fuels and other damaging industries so we would be setting ourselves/taxpayers up to inherit a nasty, costly dinosaur. There is much more economic benefit to Canada and Canadians from a healthy environment and the services that provides than we would get from fossil fuels.
MBoxall 8 months ago
There has been a voluntary moratorium in place since 1980, according to your document no ships have violated it. Why does it have to be formalized?Is there a similar moratorium on the EAST coast as that is where most of the crude oil (97%) is being shipped to and from? The most important issue is to allow transportation of these products but in a safe responsible way.
Nick Locke 8 months ago
I do not agree with a moratorium. No country in the world is safer than Canada when it moves it's oil. And yet we ignore our economy under pressure from offshore lobbying from countries who want to kill our oil industry for their own benefit. Finally, this is something Trudeau committed to without any "consultation" - something that he did commit to!
Diana Schroeder 8 months ago
Salmon and the marine environment.
Hans Terlingen 8 months ago
if we are really serious about the notion of a carbon free future, then how does it make sense to NOT have a moratorium now on tanker traffic off our coast?
Hide Replies (2)
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
I'm all for a carbon free future, but not a carbon free present, and that is solely because I do not see viable energy alternatives at present. Without Canadian exports of natural resources, there will be no money to pay for the innovation required to get to a carbon free future. (and really, "carbon free" is a misnomer because there is no such thing. Perhaps striving towards a pollution free future is more realistic).
Hide reply (1)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Myopia is the disease that affects both industry and government decisions today. One would have thought that the Trudeau government, having run on a 'youth rules; it's 2015' platform, wouldn't need reading glasses yet.
Ev 8 months ago
As a former BC Ferry employee who worked on the Queen of the North (which is still leaking fuel into the fishing waters of Hartley Bay after if hit Gill Island and sank 10 years ago) I know how pristine that area of our coast is and am certainly in support of a total tanker ban in that entire area....must be in perpetuity.....so that the fragile ecosystem is secure, as well as the fishing grounds there! This must superceed any Free Trade or other proposed deals that are on the table now....As far as tankers...it is not a matter of IF but WHEN for a spill!! Not on my watch!!!
Curt Coulson 8 months ago
1/ Climate Change2/First Nations Rights3/ Alternative energy
Curt Coulson 8 months ago
1/ Climate Change
Brian_Callahan 8 months ago
Environmental protection is the most important issue to consider while addressing the crude oil tanker moratorium. Protect both the sensitive eco-structure of the North and also safeguard marine animal life from the intrusion of mechanized oil exploration and transport.
Holly 8 months ago
The most important issue is to protect this remarkable west coast from tanker traffic in perpetuity to preserve the populations of marine mammals ie: whales, porpoises, sea lions, otters, mink along with other wild life such as eagles, blue heron, king fishers, etc. This coast is one of the last relatively pristine shorelines on this planet.
Doug Beckett 8 months ago
In the interest of our long-term economy and our environment, I request Transport Canada to fully implement the tanker moratorium off BC’s Coast.
Hide reply (1)
Doug Beckett 8 months ago
• I fear the loss in economics and jobs following the oil spills will be far greater than any economic benefits Enbridge and the LNG proponents are promising.• I fear the loss in economics and jobs and societal turmoil from Climate Change resulting from the increased expansion of the tar sands and LNG operations will be far greater than any economic benefits Enbridge is promising.• Our healthy natural ecosystems provide sustenance, economic activity, jobs and more and will do so in perpetuity. But, if damaged, we lose these benefits forever. An Enbridge pipeline leak; a spill while filling a tanker with oil, bitumen or other petroleum product; or a spill from a tanker will have devastating long-term economic impacts (let alone the devastating environmental impacts).• We can not risk our environment, our lively-hood, our ways of life, our economies by allowing tankers off BC's Coast. Please ban all tankers and protect our environment and economies.
kevansears 8 months ago
So in consideration of those who would like to see the BC North coast closed to tanker traffic, have you considered what decisions like the produce outside of our normal daily lives?If we continue to close our doors to producing and supplying oil, you can expect that other, not so ethical nations, will take over and contribute far more industrial wastelands and produce far more environmentally destructive byproducts...If you care to read the article below, it might help make the connection that a decision to close our waterways may look good here but will create far more damaging results in other regions of our world--not to mention undue suffering for the men, woman and children who have no choice but to work in these horrific places.If you really care, go and visit an unregulated country like China and see the reality of Black Rain--guaranteed you will think differently.http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/07/28/news/your-green-car-could-cause-black-rain-china
gracefix 8 months ago
Similar to asbestos, we must make the difficult decision to move towards stopping production of what severely harms the planet and therefore us. We must continue our transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources and the faster we can do that the better. That means leaving significant fossil fuels in the ground. Tanker transport and pipelines encourage new exploration and increased fossil fuel development when we should be moving to cleaner renewable options that are clearly viable and available.
Val Bjarnason 8 months ago
With no expiry date, and to be legislated by an Act of Parliament, a strong ban on crude oil tankers in the waters off the North Coast of B.C. is, in my opinion, definitely needed.All of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance, and Queen Charlotte Sound need to be included in the moratorium.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil as bulk in cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.
prairiegale 8 months ago
I think a strong oil tanker ban must include the following,The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.
rdaggitt 8 months ago
Its time for the west to tell Trudeau and the rest of the eastern plolticians to stay out of our buessiness we need to get our natural resources to market
mtdinyvr 8 months ago
NO SUPER TANKERS !! It is irresponsible to have super tankers or to have more tanker traffic than we already have on the BC coast where the economy relies much on Tourism and Fisheries, both of which will be terribly affected when a spill occurs. BC has very little to gain here, but will bear all the risks, and the Oil companies have everything to gain and very little to lose !! And NO TANKERS in the BC INSIDE PASSAGE - NO MORE EXEMPTIONS !!!!
kitkatbella 8 months ago
I think the oil industry has proven it is clean and right up there with being safe . This should start up it will put folks to work and it is clean and safe.
Hide reply (1)
jeanniek 8 months ago
There is no completely safe way to steer oil tankers through this complicated and delicate area. The catastrophe of an accident will end life in the area. Its already way too stressed and the animals are in a precarious position. The oil industry has not proven its clean nor safe.
jeanniek 8 months ago
The moratorium should be permanent in recognition for the delicate ecosystem in this area. This is not something replaceable, and the risks are just too high. To put this area at risk of a catastrophe, only to fuel a dying industry, is ridiculous. Our resources should be going to renewable fuels so that we don't have to even consider having oil tankers in such delicate and beautiful areas. We are a part of this ecosystem and need to understand we don't own it.
Arlene Nesbitt 8 months ago
The Government should create jobs by supporting an industry that creates energy sources that don't rely on oil. The Government should support forms of transportation for people and goods that rely on electricity. The Government should encourage citizens to live close to work, travel less and use less plastic and other goods made from oil.
Jimmy2016 8 months ago
If we dont have the infrastructure to use our own oil in canada then we are not doing anything but shooting ourselves in the foot by stopping oil tankers.
Hide reply (1)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Whose fault is it that we don't have the infrastructure to use our own oil in Canada? Oh, right, it's the multinational oil corporations' fault. Are they just miserly, or greedy, or both?
Arlene Nesbitt 8 months ago
An act of Parliament should be legislated to create a moratorium without an expiry date on oil tankers with bulk cargo from Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Islands and further South on the west coast of BC.
House 8 months ago
The KM expanded capacity makes a lot of sense since it follows a path theu have used to benefit Canadians since the 50s. The connection to Washington state provides a number of valuable options.
Eric Burr 8 months ago
Stopping oil tankers is the best way to stop tar sands oil from hastening the end of civilization.
Hide Replies (3)
kevansears 8 months ago
Actually...stop driving cars, running trains, flying jets, and yes even steering tankers yes even shut down BC Ferries! What a great idea!
Hide Replies (2)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
I think you've finally got it.
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
Trouble is we would fight over who gets to roast marshmallows over the fire! (smile)
House 8 months ago
While we need to have high standards for safety and full response plans/resources in place for worst case scenarios, we also need to develop our industries and meet demands through the next century as we transition to greener options. Canada should be self sufficient when it comes to petroleum products. Where our refinery capacity lacks we should at least be trading unrefined for refined with the US. We absolutely should have a positive trade numbers since we have the resource to manage. Sending a 100 billion over seas when we have industry here desperate for jobs is poor management. Also the global effect on the environment may on fact be worse when we import since not every country has our high standards.
Colin McGregor 8 months ago
After decades of work by the West Coast Environmental Law Association and its allies to uphold and legally entrench an oil tanker ban on the north coast of BC, Transport Minister Marc Garneau recently confirmed that the federal government will be formalizing the Pacific north coast oil tanker moratorium within the next few months. Federal legislation will complement an existing tanker ban imposed by Coastal First Nations as a matter of their own jurisdiction and laws.But the key components of the oil tanker ban have yet to be determined, including what legal mechanism will be used to implement the ban, where it will apply, what it will prohibit and whether it will be long-lasting or temporary. These details will make the difference between an oil tanker ban that ensures strong, lasting protection for the Pacific north coast, and a moratorium that is little more than a publicity stunt. Transport Canada is asking for public input on these important details.West Coast has published a document that sets out in detail its views on the key aspects of the oil tanker ban. West Coast’s key points boil down to the following: The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament. The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date. The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.
Energy_Exports_are_vital 8 months ago
energy exports, environmentally safe, ARE VITAL.not total bans
Hide Replies (3)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
There's no such thing as an environmentally safe pipeline or tanker.
Hide Replies (2)
kevansears 8 months ago
Everything had an element of risk!
Hide reply (1)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
But some are not worth the risk. The export of bitumen is one of those.
Sue M 8 months ago
Having grown up on the northwest coast of BC, I think making a permanent, legislated ban on tankers is a very important step. Not only could an oil spill jeopardize BC's economy (tourism, fishing, etc) and its environment, but it is also something that should become unnecessary should the world actually try to wean itself off of fossil fuels and meet the Paris Agreement targets. I agree with many others that we should work to prevent this kind of tanker traffic off of the whole coast of BC and possibly extend the no go zone for tankers to include the entire EEZ. The oil spill in 2015 from a cargo vessel shows the complete inadequacy of our response systems. The truth is is that once old has leaked, it is very very hard to contain it again and the damage done takes decades (centuries even) to repair. While the ban should allow fossil fuel to be delivered to coastal communities, there should be a plan to phase that out as well -possibly by allowing these communities to be the first ones for pilot projects involving eliminating the need for fossil fuels.
Hide Replies (3)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Some northern communities have already done so. There was a news item about it just recently.
Hide Replies (2)
kevansears 8 months ago
Try to put the article up so we can have a read...
Hide reply (1)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Google is your friend.
Kirsty101 8 months ago
There is no other choice but a moratorium to protect coastal waters. The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament. We should be moving away from oil, not legislating additional transport.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.The tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.Huge risks for the coastal ecosystem are a given if the above is not legislated. To lessen risks the legislated oil tanker moratorium must stops whips carrying oil in bulk as cargo.
Hide Replies (2)
Energy_Exports_are_vital 8 months ago
Another choice is to allow only certain tanker standards. Modern double hulled tankers with modern NAV systems and pilots going 5km/h do not sink.
Hide reply (1)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Double-hulled ships are not indestructible, and tankers don't travel at 5kms/hr, either.
spincat007 8 months ago
Do not agree with a moratorium. Tanker safety (double hulls, etc.) and world class spill response should be mandatory. Companies shipping oil and gas should be liable for any spills. Pilotage and Coast Guard monitoring and inspection must be in place and mandatory. Established safe routes must be used. But we can ship oil and gas safely from our coast and should do so.
Hide Replies (3)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Define 'world class spill response'. Crude oil spills are common all over this planet.
Energy_Exports_are_vital 8 months ago
Indeed. Modern double hulled tankers with modern NAV systems and pilots going 5km/h do not sink.
Hide reply (1)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
When have you witnessed a tanker traveling at 5km/h? (Ever been to sea, Billy?)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
The oil tanker ban must not only be legislated by an Act of Parliament, nor contain a sunset clause or expiry date, but it must apply to ALL B.C. coastal waters and prohibit ships carrying bitumen/crude oil for export.The Trudeau government ran on a platform of green energy alternatives and needs to stop reneging on their promises to protect our land, rivers, and coastal waters from fossil fuel pollution.
Hide Replies (5)
kevansears 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to moderation rules
Hide Replies (3)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to moderation rules
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Oh, I see. Using the term 'Potato Head' when referring to the PM is considered respectful.......o-kay. And 'assume' is now considered a 'bad word'. I must remember that in the future.
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
Comment is irrelevant to the topic.Please refer to moderation rules
kevansears 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment was potentially defamatory. Please refer to moderation rules
Doug McLeod 8 months ago
If such a plan is to be instituted, it must be Canada wide. A ban on tankers on the west coast - especially into Vancouver via the Trans-mountain facility brings them through a 25 mile wide Strait of Juan de Fuca. Tankers going into Montreal traverse a far longer and narrower, more dangerous route especially given the currents generated in the river. Having traveled both routes by ship, the east is far more dangerous. So if you enforce a ban on one, without the other, you aren't putting in place a Canadian plan, you are simply declaring an economic war on one part of the country. As well, one would have to explain how tankers can proceed up the Thames into London, and up/down the Hudson into New York, but expect Armageddon only on one coast in Canada. The decision would have no credibility and quite rightly be seen as indefensible.
Hide reply (1)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
True, but that wasn't the question we were asked to answer.
David Bouck 8 months ago
Our coast is too precious to allow for the risk of a tanker spill.
Hide Replies (2)
kevansears 8 months ago
What about the rest of our coastlines...?
Hide reply (1)
David Bouck 8 months ago
Hi Kevan. We all have to do what we can where we can. I live on the BC coast so that's where I think I can have an effect.
JDevries 8 months ago
A few thoughts that address my concerns surrounding the protection of this ecologically important area for future generations. I think it is important that the oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament. As well, the legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date. Of special importance, the legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. Finally, the legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities. An overarching strategy that quickly moves Canada toward a low carbon economy and investment in alternative clean energy sources is long overdue.
Hide Replies (3)
kevansears 8 months ago
Good to see that you can copy and paste and edit--straight from the Sierra Club BC with editing--how about your own original thoughts!
Hide Replies (2)
JDevries 8 months ago
I've thought about it and I agree with them - feel better about my comments? - because I really care about what you think.
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to moderation rules
Gale Tyler 8 months ago
• The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament.• The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.• The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
I'm sorry, moderator have't we seen this a few times on this page--thought duplicate posts was prohibited--guess taking all these Sierra Club BC posts down would cause a ruckus, eh!
Don L.Allison 8 months ago
NO oil tankers on our West Coast ever. No one can guarantee that all tanker traffic is safe so allow no tanker traffic.Our west coast marine and shore life are already struggling to exist because of climate and an inevitable oil spill will further destroy this very sensitive area.No to oil tankers and yes to to safe alternate energy.Thank you.
marse 8 months ago
I believe that any discussion or decisions about an oil tanker moratorium must include the following points:1. The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament2. The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date3. The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound4. The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to moderation rules
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
B.C., unlike SK, is concerned about the environment. Most of us don't want a repeat of what recently happened in the North Saskatchewan River.
kevansears 8 months ago
Just a thought...How many Green-people posting here are protesting the massive pipeline expansion going on throughout the USA...????
Hide Replies (3)
JpinBC 8 months ago
I am, for one.
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
Great because we are nothing but a drop in the bucket compared to their expansions!
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
We have no say in what goes on down there. If we did, do you think Trump would still be a candidate for President?
madlin 8 months ago
British Columbia's coastline must be protected. The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament. I stand with the the First Nations of the Yinka Dene Alliance in their efforts to stop the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines and tankers project Even a small spill would change our waters for many, many years. My grandchildren deserve to live in the same kind of natural beauty that I have enjoyed for the majority of my life. We must embrace other ways to heat our homes and transport ourselves. Stop the use of fossil fuels!
Hide Replies (2)
Energy_Exports_are_vital 8 months ago
Did you stop driving a car too ?
Hide reply (1)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Ever heard of an 'EV'?
Lordaren 8 months ago
Improve on existing don't try changing something radical! We will all still drive, by oil products and things made out of plastic so let's control it but not stop it or we r broke and can't take take care of ourselves then Russia china or the US will step in and then there will be real environment problems. NO MORATORIUMS!!!
Hide Replies (3)
DebbieLongley 8 months ago
Eventually oil is going to run out people, and we won't all be able to keep driving gas powered vehicles. Must we destroy our planet in the process? Can't we think creatively and start using newer technologies now?
Hide Replies (2)
kevansears 8 months ago
But in the meantime we will be relying on oil for a long time!be smart and support responsible oil production and transportation here in Canada weather then oil brought by tankers from nations that are anything but responsible...many of these nations use oil to fund terrorist groups like ISIS!
Hide reply (1)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
When are you going to come out with that old saw about computers being made of petroleum products? (There's an alternative for plastic as well).
Laurie Embree 8 months ago
I would like to see a permanent and legislated Moratorium or BAN on oil tanker traffic on the coast of B.C. That ban should include all the sensitive areas that the group of 130 Canadian scientists indicated in their recommendations to Ms. McKenna.I think that if there is to be new energy producing infrastructure built, at this time in history we need those projects to be in green initiatives that support protection of, and not risk to, our environment.
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
I would like to request that whoever is in charge of this discussion forum post the comments in chronological order.
mcappe 8 months ago
A strong oil tanker moratorium must be based on a few key principles:- It must be legislated by an Act of Parliament.- It must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.- It must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.- It must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying crude or refined oil in bulk as cargo, including in particular persistent oil, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.
Hide Replies (4)
kevansears 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to moderation rules
Nklatt 8 months ago
Another copy, paste...way to add in the dashes to make it "different"
kevansears 8 months ago
Yet another removal by the moderator--still waiting to see all the Sierra Club BC copy and past removed...!
Hide reply (1)
Virginia Smith 8 months ago
Give it a rest.
kcollier 8 months ago
Any oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament and should not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.
Hide Replies (2)
kevansears 8 months ago
Nice to see that you know how to copy and paste from the Sierra Club BC webpage!http://sierraclub.bc.ca/take-action-centre/tanker-ban-comments/
Hide reply (1)
kcollier 8 months ago
Thank you. Using available resources effectively is, indeed, one of my strengths.
libertydisco 8 months ago
The most important issue is our future. We don't want our oceans and beaches to be polluted by inevitable spills for short-term economic gain. We don't need exhaust from tankers contributing to a planet that is warming at considerable rates. Future green technologies are being developed, and it is foolish to continue to significantly invest in old, and soon to be outdated technologies.
bc nanny 8 months ago
I agree with West Coast Environmental Law's position.
gschentag 8 months ago
It is time now to move away from fossil fuels.This does not mean drop everything and return to caves, it does mean stop developing new infrastructure and new means to transport more even faster.A tanker moratorium would cause other options to emerge. Like in-place refining, local jobs & local usage.Seems to me that jobs will exist in what ever industry steps up (wind, Solar, tidal ...). It is the biggest of the worlds corporations that need to adjust more quickly. As a species we are capable of great feats. We have sent space ships deep into our Galaxy. We can do this as well.IBM stopped building typewriters when that stopped making sense. I suspect those workers found other jobs. Ice trucks disappeared as refrigeration arrived. It is time to move on and protect the environment we still have by not letting marine accidents, like the Exxon Valdease, happen again. The BC coastline supports way more than just humans needing to meet thier needs, This is a shared planet, and as the dominant species we have a responsibility to the rest of it's occupants.The most important issue for our Government to consider is the long term future of our planet. For our kids and for all the other life that exists here.
davemacq 8 months ago
Having read the “Marine Transportation in Canada Discussion Paper" as well as the West Coast Environmental Law FAQ document, I am fully in favour with the ban proposed by West Coast Environmental Law --- a ban on shipment of fossil fuels within the designated areas. It is time to cease this international trade, while protecting the survival of Canadian and Alaskan settlements during transition away from fossil fuels.
Onni Milne 8 months ago
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue.Along with many others as shown below, I support the following:1. Legislation required for the Northern Coast must be a BAN, not a moratorium, with no sunset clause or expiry date.2. Legislated oil tanker BAN must apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.3. Legislated oil tanker BAN must prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.4. Long term goal must be to ban crude oil traffic for the entire BC coast. As a resident of Vancouver, I have little interest in seeing poison bitumen destroying my shoreline as well. 5. Oil spill response is inadequate so why are we allowing a disaster waiting to happen to happen for we all know it is a question of WHEN, not if. It has been over 20 years since the Exxon Valdez crude oil spill in Prince William Sound. My understanding is that there is still oil washing up on their shores. That was crude oil, not toxic bitumen, so our spill will be even more damaging.6. First Nations land and treaty rights must be honoured. Coastal communities are rightfully protecting their sustainable industries like tourism and fisheries. I understand that herring stocks are returning due to the hard work and commitment of First Nations. Bitumen tanker spills will destroy activities for all.7. Bitumen spills clean up costs are never fully covered by liability charges for shippers. It is no secret that corporations run as far away as fast as possible when there is a spill or disaster. Canadian citizens will end up paying for a spill we didn't want or ask for. I want my tax dollars spent on funding renewable energy resources not paying for remediation that a corporation refuses to pay.
Hide Replies (2)
Fred.vanvogt@gmail.com 8 months ago
So, how do we get oil in or out then? No oil out means we need to import oil. So where does it arrive? Easy to say use other than oil products, what what specifically that works to the degree necessary. And please think it through rather than just saying something.
Hide reply (1)
JpinBC 8 months ago
"No oil out means we need to import oil"In what possible way does this make sense? No oil out means that there is more oil in. Refine it here and there is no need to import it, and vastly less need to transport it. The less we need to transport it, the less danger there will be to the environment from doing so. By refining our own oil in our own country we maximize the economic benefit of the resource. I support the permanent BAN of tankers on the west coast. Clearly there are still needs for oil as an energy source in this country and there will continue to be such needs for some time to come even as cleaner and more sustainable energy sources come online (hopefully as fast as possible). During this time it would make sense to transport the oil less and do more of our own refining, which would more than offset any jobs loss from preventing the TMP and banning tanker traffic on the intracoastal waterways.
drbob 8 months ago
The oil tanker moratorium must be federal law, and should have no expiry date. It must apply to all of Queen Charlotte sound, Dixon Entrance and Hecate Strait, and prevent ships from carrying bulk oil.
Laurie 8 months ago
I want a permanent and federally legislated oil tanker ban on BC's north coast to preserve the salmon fishery, the tourism industry, and to protect the health and safety of local residents.The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.The moratorium must not be over-ruled or overturned by foreign trade agreements already in place or to be written in the future.
Hide Replies (2)
kevansears 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to moderation rules
kevansears 8 months ago
Let me gess, it offensive to comment about copy and paste comments that are clearly coming from the Sierra Club BC
Patricia 8 months ago
The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.
Bluejannie 8 months ago
I agree with earlier posts that the moratorium should be legislated, permanent and apply to most if not all of the BC coast. Our environment is irreplaceable and doing less would be an abrogation of our responsibility.
Pzack 8 months ago
Prohibit crude oil ships from entering ecologically sensitive areas, we need to protect our environment, marine life, our coasts, etc.
neilfrazer 8 months ago
Prohibiting passage of bulk petroleum carriers in or near Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound and Queen Charlotte Strait.
Lynda Peach 8 months ago
Put this moratorium into an Act of Parliament so it can't be rescinded without full public debate. Make it permanent and as hard to get rid of as black oil on white cotton. It is just too important to the livelihoods and well-being of BC residents to make this moratorium easy to rescind. No sunset clause, no expiry date. No borrowing of time from the backstage pressure constantly exerted by the oil lobbies. Make it permanent.
Marc Bombois 8 months ago
The most important issue is protection of the environment. Building pipelines to tidewater across many hundreds of waterways and two major mountain ranges is madness. And then to send that bitumen on tankers through notoriously dangerous waters is further insanity. A moratorium will also help slow expansion of that environmental disaster, the tar sands.
dlb 8 months ago
the primary issue i'm concerned with is protecting our coast, and the only way to protect it adequately is to keep crude oil tankers away from it. no amount of oil spill preparation, cleanup, or PR can undo the damage once a disaster occurs, and let's be clear -- that damage is massive. so let's avoid the possibility altogether.my secondary concern is for protecting the food and water of those that live on the coast, and those that work their in fishing, tourism, etc. the lives of these people would be decimated by a tanker spill so i'm not willing to gamble their homes and jobs for jobs elsewhere.
No tankers ever 8 months ago
I,m not sure government regulators are aware bitumen does not float, more than 95percent of spilled product will go straight to the sea floor were it will con tuning to pollute for years and years
Pam.mac 8 months ago
I too support a permanent federally legislated ban on oil tanker traffic in the fragile waters of northern BC. I also believe there should be a moratorium on tanker traffic in all Canadian coastal waters until such time as all shipping companies/oil companies have posted a "clean up" bond of several billion dollars, to ensure that they can and will clean up potential spills rather than claiming bankruptcy and leaving Canadians to foot the bill à la Lac Mégantic. The same bonding, cash up front, should apply to any new/proposed pipelines.
C Dandy 8 months ago
The most important issue is getting Canadian Oil to offshore markets.
Hide Replies (2)
DebbieLongley 8 months ago
Protecting our natural environment so that we can continue to live on this planet is more important than a few jobs. We could create many more jobs in renewable energy anyway and all live better.
Hide reply (1)
C Dandy 8 months ago
This has nothing to do with protecting the planet and everything to do with an economic war waged by foreign interest on Canadian energy. If it was about protecting the planet there would be a ban on tanker traffic through the iceberg filled Gulf of St Lawrence and down the seaway to Montreal.The United States is importing our light sweet oil for $3 to $4 a barrel less than they are selling their light sweet oil to the world, does it surprise anyone that there is US funding of anti pipeline groups. Saudi Arabia was willing to go billions of dollars into debt over the last few years to protect their market share is it any wonder they also fund groups that oppose getting Canadian oil to a world market.First follow the money, if you cannot find anyone that benefits in significant sums then maybe media and advocates are offering a morally motivated position. As soon as large amounts of money get involved it becomes harder to make a good choice. In this case if we are against oil tankers in Canadian waters then that should go both ways. It seems we are in favour of importing oil by tankers but against exporting oil by tankers. If we are going to take a position against exporting oil then time to shut off the pipelines to the US but it seems that we are in favour of exporting discounted oil (and natural gas) but against exporting at the higher world price.
Ann 8 months ago
I totally support the West Coast Environmental Law submissions which I have cut and pasted below. 1) The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament. 2) The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date. 3) The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. 4) The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.
Hide reply (1)
Salal 8 months ago
I absolutely agree. One spill would be a disaster. Kinder Morgan has stated that spills are inevitable..."but they should be looked on as employment opportunities." BC's west coast provides First Nation people sustenance. It provide s livelihood for a large tourist industry. Do you really want to be responsible for the death?
Jane Topping 8 months ago
I am a Canadian who is concerned about the future and supports efforts to build a sustainable future as defined by Brundtland. I fully support the oil tanker ban in BC especially on BC's north coast. with the exception of fuel required by coastal communities but having said that would hope that the communities that currently depend upon petroleum products would move towards renewable energy to meet there needs. Any tanker ban to be effective must be permanent and therefore must be legislated so future governments can not revoke it under any circumstances (ie. no sunset clauses or expiry dates. There are some things that we must protect and our natural environment is one of them . It is priceless and irreplaceable and provides ecosystem services that we rely on for our very survival at virtually no cost. You can not eat , drink or breath money so we must not continue to allow financial greed to trump moving towards building a sustainable future. We do not own the future we are keepers of the future and hold its priceless and essential biodiversity and natural ecosystems in trust for the support of all future generations. We all therefore have an obligation to do whatever it takes to safeguard our amazing natural world for the the natural it is the only foundation upon which we can build a sustainable future and ensure there is enough for all forever. It is time to take climate change seriously, move rapidly to secure a path of renewable energy and ensure that as we grow and develop we Safeguard earth's biodiversity. A sustainable future is attainable if you choose to make a difference and work towards building it.
Margaret Goodman 8 months ago
Canada is still a beautiful country that can provide for its citizens in a sustainable way that does not harm the environment.•The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament. Anything less can be overturned way too easily.•The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.•The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.•The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.
Frank Mitchell 8 months ago
The most critical components of this ban should bea. Permanent (not subject to sunset clauses)b. Be enshrined in an Act of Parliament to ensure any future changes require careful public delibration.c. That it cover all the relevant waters to maintain the sensitive environment and habitat. Thus, it should at a minimum incorporate all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, d. Prohibition on any bulk cargo transport of oil, aside from transporting fuel oil to communities in this region.
Hide reply (1)
DebbieLongley 8 months ago
I absolutely agree.
kjm 8 months ago
The moratorium must be formally legislated by an act of Parliament, and specified as a permanent ban. The ban/moratorium must cover the entire north coast, including Dixon Entrance, Queen Charlotte Sound, Hecate Strait, and the Great Bear Rainforest. The /ban/moratorium must be permanent, without any expiration date or grandfather clauses. Only necessary shipments of fuel to northern communities should be allowed. Ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo must be prohibited. All crude oil tanker traffic must be forbidden. A formalized and legislated ban will ensure we have lasting protection from the risks of oil tankers on the North Coast, and will remove all doubt about the legal status of the moratorium.
Anna Louise E. Fontaine 8 months ago
Tant que les risques seront aussi grands, il devrait y avoir un moratoire. Et puis, les compagnies devraient être obligées de réparer les dégâts s'il y a déversement; les sommes nécessaires devraient être garanties avant d'accorder des permis. Et il ne devrait y avoir aucune échappatoire juridique ou faillite ou n'importe quelle excuses.
SheilaPeters 8 months ago
The moratorium must be legislated by parliament without sunset clauses or expiry dates;It must apply to (at a minimum) all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound;It must prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo while letting fuel needed by coastal communities be shipped.
ScottS2488 8 months ago
I don't believe a moratorium on tankers will benefit anyone. Of course the environment would be preserved but most people would have to move away from the coast as they would no longer be able to earn a living due to the loss of economic activity.
Hide Replies (2)
kevansears 8 months ago
They can all move to East Hastings!
Hide reply (1)
ScottS2488 8 months ago
Lololol
Shelley 8 months ago
There should be a ban on oil tankers. The environmental damage of any size spill cannot be mitigated. There is no such thing as safety from spills. It isn't a matter of if, it's a matter of when a spill will occur.
Hide Replies (4)
kevansears 8 months ago
So all oil transportation on all of Canada's coastlines...or is that too inconvenient!
Hide Replies (2)
BritishColumbianNotAlbertan 8 months ago
Just a ban on big tankers in restricted waterways, like Kitimat.
Hide reply (1)
Nklatt 8 months ago
Kitimat is not a restricted waterway. It's proposed to be restricted!
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
If environmental damage is truly the concern, help me understand why oil tankers from foreign countries are permitted to travel the St. Lawrence and along our east coast. Is these areas not worth protecting? Instead of a yes / no, why not come up with solutions / regulations that ALL tanker traffic in ALL of Canada (and Canadian waters) must abide by?
ThomasTankerBan 8 months ago
The most important issue is fairness. If tankers are banned on the west coast of Canada, they should also be banned on the east coast. In addition to the severe economic losses that this measure will inflict, it leads to division and strife within the country. The whole country will suffer from the Liberal strategy of beating up one region to win votes in another.
Rebecca Georges 8 months ago
The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date. The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities. It needs to be stated again!
Hide reply (1)
Nklatt 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - this was a duplicate comment. Please refer to moderation rules
Lori 8 months ago
The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament. The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date. The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.
Hide reply (1)
Nklatt 8 months ago
Removed by moderator - this was a duplicate comment. Please refer to moderation rules
Bucadogg 8 months ago
I feel this moratorium only exists due to the current governments siding with activism and not science or statistics. The world transports oil in many ports with eco systems as sensitive of any Canadian waters. Restricting oil transportation in any fashion is a direct insult to the professional and caring approach from Canada's oil and gas industry. Pandering to activism is a sell out and how dare any leader of our country go against the economics of this countries oil and gas industry. An industry that is a world leader in environmental protection in design and also treats those employed with respect and dignity.
Hide Replies (3)
Brenda Mark 8 months ago
It's sad that it is either the economy or the environment. The environment should support the economy and vice versa. My opinion is activism and yours isn't?
BritishColumbianNotAlbertan 8 months ago
On line 5 the writer above has wrote, and I copy and quote this line directly: "how dare any leader of our country go against the economics of this countries oil and gas industry. "Being from BC, and having lived in Alberta occasionally since the 1970's, (not working in oil/gas) I know how Alberta thinks, and operates, and this is it. The mostly foreign owned oil industry in Alberta is everything, it is king, Albertans know it is king, Albertans have cleverly molded it almost entirely for themselves, that is why the late former Premier Peter Lougheed is a National Hero in Alberta, and nobody, and Alberta means nobody, had better get in Alberta's way when it comes to Alberta's oil and gas industry, not in Alberta, and not outside of Alberta, where-ever that may be.....
Hide reply (1)
Nklatt 8 months ago
So the $200+ Billions Alberta has paid in "equalization payments", were never taken by every single province. Good to know!
Roy 8 months ago
-The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament.-The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.-The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.
Hide Replies (3)
kevansears 8 months ago
I HAD MY COMMENT REMOVED AS SPAM!THE PERSON POSTING THIS AND OTHERS WITH VERY SIMILAR COMMENTS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN COPYING FROM AN OUTSIDE SOURCE...!
Hide reply (1)
kevansears 8 months ago
WELL WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT..."CLICK TO SEND ***YOUR*** COMMENT NOW!"BELOW IS SCRIPTED BY THE SIERRA CLUB BC--JUST COPY AND PAST--LIKE A WHOLE LOT OF THESE SO CALLED COMMENTS--HARDLY A THOUGHTFUL AND PERSONALLY INFORMED RESPONSE--(SMELLS LIKE SPAM--MABY THE WEB ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD REMOVE ALL THE SO-CALLED COMMENTS THAT ARE FROM THE SIERRA CLUB BC WEB PAGE)It must be legislated by an Act of Parliament.It must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.It must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.It must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying crude or refined oil in bulk as cargo, including in particular persistent oil, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.http://sierraclub.bc.ca/take-action-centre/tanker-ban-comments/
kevansears 8 months ago
Worth Reading if you care to know where the money is coming from to fund these protest groups...http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/tides-tar-sands-campaign-2009-2010.html"Along with the (Rockefeller Brothers and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation and the Packard Foundation--ALL MAJOR STAKE HOLDERS IN AMERICAN OIL COMPANIES) provided more than US$100 million for the creation of the Great Bear Rainforest on the north coast of B.C., an enormous park-like, no trade zone that’s twice the size of Switzerland."
kevansears 8 months ago
I do not support a tanker ban for the north west coast! This is not about protection for the area's environment, much more, this has to do with shutting down Alberta oil production by American oil producers who want to dominate the market. Tankers are remarkably safe and the pilots and professionals manning these vessels are highly qualified to navigate our waters. As a Canadian from the West Coast and a voting Canadian, stop trying to manipulate the people and recognize the importance of these NATION BUILDING projects like pipelines and tanker movement that is about getting our responsible oil resources to competitive markets outside of manipulating American elitist! If you block oil tankers on the West Coast you had better block them on the East Coast. Not impressed with this Potato Head government
Hide reply (1)
BritishColumbianNotAlbertan 8 months ago
I agree completely with this poster that Energy East is a nation building project and should be built, and that tankers on the east coast, while much less dangerous than on the west coast because of the much more open waters on the east coast, are still somewhat of an issue and should be done away with if possible, particularly when the oil they carry comes from Middle Eastern sources which have dictatorial governments, restrictive societies, and vague environmental regulations. Energy East is a 100% positive project for the entire country.
Nancy Crozier 8 months ago
The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament and must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait,Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. This legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities. Yes this is exactly what the woman ahead of me said. But I want no mistakes because I do not trust the current government because of their lying about how they will deal with energy and pipelines.and their disregard for Indigenous Peoples rights. In particular PM Trudeau seems to be as duplicitous and dishonourable as his predecessor.
pjmurch 8 months ago
Do not have a crude oil tanker moratorium. Think about our economy. Make sure tankers are safe (which they are). Regulate. Do not ban.
Derrick 8 months ago
All tankers should be allowed in Canadian waters as long as they are double hulled
Asomerton 8 months ago
This moratorium was a bad idea, it hurts our economy, and exports at a time when we need jobs and need to be thinking of better ways to support our industries. By placing this moratorium we are supporting our global competition while shooting ourselves in the foot. The moratorium plan should be scrapped we already had regulations in place to mitigate the risks to our environment through transport regulations.
tbpollard 8 months ago
I live here on the north coast. My neighbors and I rely on the prosperity that development brings. I recognize that some developments are not going to supported by the majority of Canadians and or British Columbians and that's fine. However, a blanket ban on anything, be it regional tankers travel , log exports, or moose hugging is just plain dumb and more akin to making a moral gesture than a meaningful policy. Lets focus on making policy that is considered, effective at achieving a specific goal, and flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances.
CanadaFirst 8 months ago
No, I do not support a moratorium on tankers. I believe with correct safety procedures and plans oil can and should be exported from BC Ports. Check with Saint John, NB. Tankers move in and out of that port daily with no incident. They off load and on load at the Canaport Monubouy which is off coast and approximately 2k from the city and have had no issues. The traffic brings in millions to the local economy, as well as jobs.So after tankers are were you going to stop traffic from Alaska ships? Freighters too? They all carry fuel. Should be cripple our economy in BC completely because we won't use science and fact to make decisions? Instead of emotion and retoric?If BC doesn't do it, Seattle will and you will still have the risk without any control and no benefits.If there are no tankers how will the Gulf Island and Vancouver Island receive fuel? Ther is no pipeline to us. How farmers grow food? How will food get to market without fuel. Easy to say in the city when you don't think it through.
Cquirt 8 months ago
It's 2016 and our planet is in dire need of care. All these things we do for the almighty dollar has destroyed the health of the planet and that just needs to change NOW! Oil tankers are bad for the planet, the eco-system on the waters. We have brilliant people with brilliant ideas for energy and oil isn't a brilliant idea. Ban all tankers.
Hide reply (1)
CanadaFirst 8 months ago
There is no pipeline to Vancouver Island. How do you propose to get fuel to us if not with tankers. This is a ridiculous.
elouise 8 months ago
There are tankers cruising up and down the west coast now carrying petroleum products from Alaska. There are many, many foreign tankers bringing oil to Canada's east coast, a marine environment equally at risk. Canada's government must apply regulations regarding this matter equally, on all its coastlines. If shipping of petroleum products is allowed on the east coast, then it must also be allowed on the west coast. Canada's government cannot unfairly discriminate and enact economically disastrous legislation for the western provinces unless they intend to apply the same legislation to every inch of Canada's coastline.
vixmedia 9 months ago
NORTHERN COASThttp://thetyee.ca/News/2015/01/12/Simushir-Near-Disaster/"Washington State posts an industry-funded rescue tug at Neah Bay; in Alaska, there is one at the Hinchinbrook Entrance. The Alaskan government also provides emergency towing systems -- those brought to the Simushir incident by the U.S. Coast Guard -- through a program launched after a near miss at Unalaska in 2007. Since its inception, the program is credited with averting at least one potential grounding.On its West Coast, Canada has neither."The North Coast has some of the most treacherous waters in the world. The article in the Tyee explains some of the issues. The route through narrow channels to the Pacific is fraught with danger. Everyone, including the oil companies admit that spills and accidents are inevitable. We CANNOT risk the BC coast for the profit of a few foreign nationals and investors. ISSUES1. RESCUE -- there are no dedicated rescue vessels to assist any large ship that does get into trouble2. CLEAN-UP -- there is no way to clean up any spills and the recent Federal government approval of toxic Corexit makes the situation even worse. Corexit breaks up spills and makes them appear to be cleaned up, but only sinks the oil. Corexit has caused incredible problems in the Gulf of Mexico because of long term toxicity. http://thetyee.ca/News/2016/07/18/Ottawa-Approves-Corexit/"Nature will take care of it" is NOT an acceptable response either. "A consultant for Husky Energy says the cleanup plan for a spill of oil into the North Saskatchewan River includes allowing nature to break down the material."Nature takes care of a lot of it," Ed Owens, an expert on oil spills who arrived in Saskatchewan Saturday, said. "Some of it will just degrade and weather naturally as a result of microbial bacterial action breaking down the oil."http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/husky-oil-spill-expert-north-saskatchewan-river-1.37022203. CLIMATE - Canada signed the Paris Accord recognizing climate change and pledging to reduce emissions. Building pipelines will lead to oil sands expansion creating more greenhouse gas in Canada. This oil is for export, but it will still create emissions when burned that originated from Canada.4. PROFIT and TAX -- Who is profiting from this pipeline and how much is Canada receiving from these profits in taxes and royalties? It is strange that these figures are so difficult to obtain. In Alberta the royalty system is tied to the price of oil, so with low prices and subsidies - companies are basically taking the oil out for nothing - in fact Canada may be paying them to remove our non-renewable resources.With recent headlines on tax avoidance and oil subsidies taxpayers know that we are paying for infrastructure support for oil export and subsidizing operations. Why? Do not play the jobs card -- more people work making beer in Canada than in all resource industries. Canadians do not want to subsidize the fossil fuel industry and particularly, we do not want to pay for safety measures and spill clean up. Note: Kinder-Morgan also owns the spill clean up company and will profit from spills -- conflict?http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Kinder+Morgan+pipeline+application+says+spills+have+both+negative+positive+effects/9793673/story.htmlINSIDE PASSAGEhttps://vimeo.com/127905057 "The Nathan E. Stewart/DBL 54 is an articulated tug/barge" (ATB) and is owned by the Texas-based Kirby Corporation, which is one of the largest petroleum product ATB operators in the USA. It travels back and forth up the B.C. Inside Passage by “special waiver" which exempts it from Transport Canada shipping regulations. These guide the movement of all other tankers operating in BC waters. As a result, it operates here with no Canadian pilots on board, it does not require escort tugs while maneuvering in Port Metro Vancouver, and most egregiously, it is allowed to travel north through Seymour Narrows and into the "voluntary tanker exclusion zone" that is the B.C. Inside Passage. As such, this unflagged foreign vessel blatantly flouts the concerns of the people of Canada, and operates here secretively without any social license whatsoever."The voluntary tanker exclusion zone is not working. We need strong enforced regulations to BAN the Nathan E. Stewart/DBL 54 and all other similar large crude/fuel transport in the Inside Passage. A spill in this highly populated area would be devastating.
Hide reply (1)
Fred.vanvogt@gmail.com 8 months ago
There is no oil industry subsidy. Oil companies were paying royalties regioning 28 billion, plus income taxes, workers taxes, sales taxes. Pipelines represent up to 68 billion of private investment. Canada is a resource exporting nation. That's supports our standard of living. And yes, usually foreign companies investing. Canadians are too cautious! We get the jobs. The oil sands are naturally occurring and the land is being reclaimed and put in better shape. As to so called carbon emissions, it's real name is , carbon dioxide, CO2, a staff of life gas. It's more than totally absorbed in Canada. Net effect, we emit nothing!!Everything is a risk. Life is a risk. We must manage the risk, not avoid it..
Katherine Maas 8 months ago
We want a permanent and legislated oil tanker ban on BC's north coast in order to preserve the salmon fishery, the tourism industry, and to protect the health and safety of local residents.The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.
Hide reply (1)
Fred.vanvogt@gmail.com 8 months ago
If no oil, then where will the necessary fuel come from??
BCCarpenter 8 months ago
Simply, crude transported on water, is a multi-generational catastrophe, waiting to happen, only an all out ban on tankers with toxic cargo; can protect our waters. More simple, No tankers hauling toxic cargo in British Columbia's waters. No tankers, cargo vessels, pod ships, etc. Carrying toxic cargo in BRITISH COLUMBIA's waters.
Hide reply (1)
Fred.vanvogt@gmail.com 8 months ago
So communities up the coast will have no fuel or other supplies delivered?? They must immediately use some other way to, heat homes, fish drive etc.Is this correct??
TomLessing 8 months ago
No Moratorium is required. All ships need to sail in all Canadian waters as long as they meet Coast Guard requirements
Hide reply (1)
Vance 8 months ago
Of course the safety of our Oceans are at the top of the list. We do not want any old tankers coming into our waters they need to be inspected to top quality and meet our requirements Canada still needs to have would trade and shipping is part of that with reasonable Regulations in place not a non stop of road block of Regulations that shipping companies will say it is not worth the extra expense and hassle to what we can operate in other Countries
squipp.896@gmail.com 8 months ago
We need to switch to other economic activities including the development of non fossil fuel methods of energy production, like solar, geothermal and wonder (NOT hydroelectric dams) immediately. There is no safe way to transport diluted bitumen, coal, or fracked gas, or the volatile stuff like butane used to be mixed with dilbit. Most especially NOT tankers on the coast. Not any part of the coast...north or south BC cost. Period!!! Certainly no additional tanker traffic and begin reducing current tanker traffic asap.This should have happened years ago, but must happen now. There is great urgency.
Hide reply (1)
Fred.vanvogt@gmail.com 8 months ago
So what about the east coast? Same thing? No oil produced or shipped in asap??So then what? There is nothing that can do the job right now. And who funds this huge expensive job? What is the time line? Do you have any idea ??
kris 8 months ago
Let's stop all oil imports into Canada! This way everyone gets what they want... the environmentalists get no oil moved around, and the west gets to watch the east freeze in the dark! Now seriously, environmental, safety, and engineering standards have improved since the Exxon Valdez incident. What we need to do is ensure these standards are being followed. I would suggest that a cheque off goes directly into a fund which is used to enforce the standards and to provide the emergency response necessary to contain and clean the spill. I think the coast guard should be responsible for inspections at the ports instead of Industry Canada, as they are the ones who would have to clean up the mess. This gives the arms' length distance to ensure proper oversight, and the Coast Guard then has the incentive to ensure the standards are being met, because if they aren't then they have a huge cleanup operation to manage.
tiredofbeingheldhostage 8 months ago
This "discussion" is a charade. The moratorium is a scheme enacted by Trudeau to shut down the Western economy. Alaska is exporting by port. California and Texas are exporting by port. Why is Canada being singled out? This is nothing more than NEP 2.0. There are opportunities to gain insight from our friends and neighbours on how to perform this task safely and we're missing the boat, literally, while our neighbours prosper. This "discussion" also doesn't allow the entire Canadian population to weigh in, such as the elderly, those who do not have access to technology (i.e. rural Canada; the North; those with disabilities; the blind; those without access to computers; those who do not know about this discussion board; etc.) This is a sham so that the government can pretend it 'consulted Canadians'. If our neighbours can have prosperous economies and engage in international trade, why can't Canada?
Hide reply (1)
Chuck Nelson 8 months ago
I agree. I reminds me of the "consultation" being done on electoral reform. Impossible to get into the sessions so really a closed process / echo chamber. We should be proud of Canada's environmental regulations and record. Instead we are apologists that bow to the loudest voices (and sometimes foreign activists and celebrities) with no regard for what the facts are. Let's have a more balanced approach to this issue please!!
Brent 8 months ago
I don't support a moratorium given the fact that minimal risk is involved shipping from northern ports such as Prince Rupert while providing maximum benefits to a multitude of stakeholders.
SherryR 8 months ago
We need to get our landlocked oil to market. Canada has the best environmental record in the world. We should be teaching other nations how to regulate their petroleum industries. Our oil should be made available to the entire world until there are reasonable and viable energy alternatives. A moratorium on Canadian tanker traffic is a politically motivated attack on one of our most important industries.
Fullera 8 months ago
The most important thing the government should address is what affect it will have on the economy and the hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers. There has to be a balance. The answer isn't a moratorium. That is a knee jerk reaction and not consultative. I believe there has to be an agreeable understanding between both parties. If you place a moratorium it only accounts for one side of the table. Government wants consultation and understanding yet only seems to consult people that are against the transport of oil. This bias must stop in order to get a fair understanding of both sides.
JohnBrown 8 months ago
We need a proper comprehensive spill prevention plan, but that in no way precludes tanker access to the B.C. coast or for that matter any other of Canada's coastlines
CdnGeologist 8 months ago
Firstly, US tankers are plying those waters daily with crude oil loaded at Valdez. They will not be affected by this moratorium. Secondly, how is it reasonable to ban tanker traffic on the west when they are welcomed on the east coast and into the St. Lawrence? If you truly believe that all things are connected on the Earth you cannot ignore this point.
kevin 8 months ago
You cannot ban tankers without impacting the economics! We have shipped oil without incidence from Vancouver since 1953 and we should ship oil from Prince Rupert.
gka 8 months ago
I think that a full scientific review should be taken prior to enacting any sort of ban on economic activity in this area. Any project based economic activity is held to this standard, which should apply to any legislation, in order to determine the extent of any supposed impacts. This is not a review of the environmental impacts of carbon based fuels - this is a detailed engineering, environmental and socio-economic study that must look at the impacts of what such a moratorium would have. Specific exclusion zones with scientifically evidenced impacts and required safety requirements should be the required outcomes of the review with must take place before any legislation or formalized moratorium is enacted.
k tsang 8 months ago
The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.The tar sands must not be expanded as we know that:(a) the impact on the communities, forests and wildlife in the region are devastating(b) fossil fuels must be left in the ground and we must collectively forge a new way forward(c) the only groups who profit from this are not those who live upon those landsFurther:The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.The moratorium must not be over-ruled or overturned by foreign trade agreements already in place or to be written in the future.HONOUR THE TREATIES. HONOUR THOSE WHO HAVE INHERENT RIGHTS ON THESE LANDS, WITH OR WITHOUT TREATIES
Hazel 8 months ago
Ensure it is done right, so that industry is unable to exploit loopholes. Acknowledge indigenous rights, traditional food gathering sites and practices, respect existing treaties and those that are being negotiated.
Sheila Pratt 8 months ago
The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.I am NOT an expert nor am I a lobbyist; I'm just an ordinary Canadian who trusts West Coast Environmental Law more than government bodies who are subject to "experts" who have lobbyists to look after their financial interests.
W. Jones 8 months ago
I find the wording of the government misleading and manipulative. First off, moratorium means temporary. Therefore this comes off like the developer who holds a 'charette' in asking the community's input while knowing very well they will simply take note, but probably won't use one suggestion from the crowd that is against it. Speaking of crowd 'who is against it', there is certainly no lack of input from those who want a ban instead of a moratorium, and that that same ban should be used on southern coastal waters. And why just crude oil tankers.....why is this not applicable to shipping anything toxic and any form of oil? The government is putting out it's lures in order to catch those who think they are truly working in conjunction with a responsible government, and that this is 2016. Yes, it's 2016 but the government has it's head buried in 1940 and that it's ok Jack, we can still pull the wool over the public's eyes. Does this make me a trouble maker in their books? Good.What's this hoo-ha about not losing jobs? There are no jobs with the current moratorium status, so there will be no jobs by placing a ban on things...OR by carrying on with moratorium propaganda. We asked for transparency, we got crystal clear: the government is not intent on acting in a principled way.If you want to build, then you need principles for the foundation. The framework comes in terms of values. The outside is not a facade, it is true working order. Please get this right and call me when my great grandchildren come home. Thank you, Hiy Hiy!
Brumas 8 months ago
Since just one tanker spill can severely damage the coastal environment an immediate moratorium on new tanker traffic should be implemented. The long term goal should be to ban all traffic on the BC coast bearing in mind that there are existing commercial interests in play.Failure to do this just increases the potential for loss of habitat and species that First Nations rely on and also the commercial fishery that provides food for Canadians.While we're at it similar restrictions are required to protect the east coast fishery that is under enough pressure now.
SquamishCinci 8 months ago
We want a permanent and legislated oil tanker ban on BC's north coast! Period.
kbubbs 8 months ago
It appears that the government is saying that the wildlife on the north coast is worth protecting but the rest of the coast will be ok if there is a oil spill. It is important to point out that the inside passage if filled with an abundance of wildlife that would suffer severely if there was ever a tanker spill. In my opinion it seems necessary to include the entire west coast in the moratorium. This way we are truly supporting the idea of protecting the wildlife on the west coast of Canada.
ddachuk 8 months ago
No oil tankers on the entire Pacific Coast. Period.There is no such thing as effective cleanup. Onlylies by oil companies. They have no intention to doany clean up. Why should citizens pay the price(onall levels, financially and environmentally) for Big Oilto make billions shipping to China? No Tar Sands.Clean energy is the way forward.
robie 8 months ago
The tanker moratorium should include the entire BC coast, and not just simply the "north coast." Additionally, the current traffic of petroleum products northbound to Alaska by tug/barge via Salish Sea and the entire BC Inside Passage must be stopped immediately. This traffic, to the tune of more than half a million dwt of petroleum product annually, delivered on average of one 10,000 dwt load every 10 days poses a dreadful risk to our coast. It offers nothing whatsoever to Canada, -not a single Canadian job, -no Canadian pilot nor sailor, no stops in Canada, pays no fees, no tariff, no taxes, no remuneration whatsoever to the Canadian economy. If coastal Alaska communities require 500,000 dwt of petroleum products annually, they need to get a proper ocean-going 500,000 dwt tanker and travel OFFSHORE, just as all the other tankers are required to do.
John Stevens 8 months ago
The most important issue is time. The sooner Canada phases out all fossil fuels the better in terms of addressing climate change.
Curt Coulson 8 months ago
This is 2016! Canada must adopt permanent legislation prohibiting tankers along our west coast and in the Arctic. I could enter a thousand words regarding my opposition to these ships off our coasts but you have heard them all before. Canada must respect First Nations rights and most of all respect the rights of all the children in the world to a healthy clean environment. We have but ONE home. It is becoming increasingly dangerous to live in all for one thing. A few jobs today, the promise of a higher standard of living for today and possible re-election for some. Our personal greed totally ignores the future of all children. NO!!! to all tankers off our coast.
lhalme 8 months ago
I believe a crude oil tanker moratorium is necessary to keep our Salish Sea/BC coastline free from any chance of a catastrophic disaster that a spill would cause. We rely on our beautiful ocean for our liveliehoods and our recreation and our peace of mind. To date there is no way to 100% guarantee that there will be no spill and even less ability to clean up. I'm not so opposed to the pipelines per se, but most defintely opposed to tankers of crude in our waters. If the pipelines could deliver to a refinery here in BC, I would be ok with that.
Roy 8 months ago
There should be a ban on all tanker traffic on our BC Coastline.
Gabriela Hirt 8 months ago
There should be a legislated moratorium on oil (including bitumen) tankers for the entire BC coast. Not only to avoid devastating accidents and oil spills, but also to NOT expand the Oil Sands and instead invest into a clean energy future. Climate Change is THE threat to civilization of our time. So every investment we make, every infrastructure we build should pass the litmus test of climate sustainability. Expanding fossil fuel production and transportation is investing into an industry of the past. There are much more jobs to be secured by preserving our pristine and unique coastal waters.
AlNorte 9 months ago
The most important issue for the Government to address is to actually legislate an oil tanker ban by amending the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. The tanker ban should also be in compliance with the Coastal First Nations tanker ban by applying to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound (as also set out in the Mandate Letter). The ban should also include all oil "in an oil tanker", so that products from raw bitumen to refined oil are included, but vessels may still carry fossil fuels for communities and freight traffic.
mustnotexpire 9 months ago
The oil tanker moratorium must be legislated by an Act of Parliament. The legislated oil tanker moratorium must not contain a sunset clause or expiry date. The legislated oil tanker moratorium must at minimum apply to all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mandate Letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. The legislated oil tanker moratorium must comprehensively prohibit ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo, while allowing necessary shipments of fuel to coastal communities.
klimaz 9 months ago
The entire coast, including the Salish Sea, and all petroleum products, should be included in the moratorium. Shipments between Washington State and the State of Alaska would need to take place in international waters. There could be an exemption for fuel delivery to those communities that have no road access.
Don Skerik 9 months ago
Moratorium should include the full west coast.Moratorium must be legislation as we all know voluntary compliance does not work with large corporations.
DonClogg 9 months ago
1) A complete tanker ban must be legislated by parliament not voluntary;2) Coastal communities must still be able to obtain fuel and furnace oil;3) There must not be a 'sunset clause' or expiry date;4) The ban must include all of Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound.
Ingmar Lee 9 months ago
The tanker moratorium should include the entire BC coast, and not just simply the "north coast." Additionally, the current traffic of petroleum products northbound to Alaska by tug/barge via Salish Sea and the entire BC Inside Passage must be stopped immediately. This traffic, to the tune of more than half a million dwt of petroleum product annually, delivered on average of one 10,000 dwt load every 10 days poses a dreadful risk to our coast. It offers nothing whatsoever to Canada, -not a single Canadian job, -no Canadian pilot nor sailor, no stops in Canada, pays no fees, no tariff, no taxes, no remuneration whatsoever to the Canadian economy. If coastal Alaska communities require 500,000 dwt of petroleum products annually, they need to get a proper ocean-going 500,000 dwt tanker and travel OFFSHORE, just as all the other tankers are required to do.
Jacqueline 9 months ago
It is absolutely horrendous, a 10,000 ton tanker owned by the Texas-based Kirby Corporation is being permitted to ship crude oil from the Burnaby Terminal in BC to Alaska. We do not have an oil spill response plan should an oil spill occur. The US Coast Guard has had to come to it's rescue prior when storm conditions arose. This is unacceptable!!! Not only that but I am extremely dismayed with the recent approval by the Federal government of Corexit as a way to clean up spills. [Corexit] doesn’t do anything to clean up an oil spill. It allows the toxicity in the oil to become more biologically available. The last thing you want is for oil to accumulate in the gills of a lobster.” as reported in the National Graphic. A study from the University of South Florida has also confirmed the negative effects. USF researchers dug up core samples from the gulf bottom in 2010, 2011 and 2012, and they plan to return this year and next to compare what they found. Their examination uncovered the massive die-off, according to researcher Patrick Schwing. They also noted an absence of microscopic worms that are normally seen in those areas. The researchers could not estimate how many square miles the die-off covered. Weathered particles of oil from Deepwater Horizon are buried in the sediment in the gulf bottom and could be there for as much as a century.Let us learn from these very huge environmental disasters instead of approving more oil tankers on our coastal waters. I am requesting that we place a crude oil tanker moratorium in Canada for the very reason we are incapable of handling a major oil spill. Tourism brings in millions of dollars of revenue because of the beauty of our East and West Coast. The fishing industry alone will be completely destroyed for future generations!!My prior comment was marked as span by akismet?? This is why I submitted another response.
Robert Fladmark 9 months ago
The Moratorium should not be limited to Crude Oil Tankers. The moratorium should limit the size, the maximum of petroleum product carried by any mode of marine transport, be it crude or refined, domestic or foreign shipping.