handyman Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 We have covered Religion and War...anyone for the environment? http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/c.../offshore_oil_3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted December 6, 2004 Author Share Posted December 6, 2004 Do we need to be in the 1000+ gang or very left of centre to get a discussion going here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AME Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 I couldn't get your link to work, but I'll bet that any suggestion of off-shore oil exploration on the BC coast will send the lower mainland tree huggers into a hissy fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 For those who can not get the link to work.... Federal cabinet to review B.C. offshore oil exploration moratorium Mon Nov 22, 7:22 PM ET DIRK MEISSNER VICTORIA (CP) - Prime Minister Paul Martin's cabinet will review the controversial moratorium preventing offshore oil and gas exploration off British Columbia's north coast, a delegation of B.C. cabinet ministers was told Monday. Spokesmen for federal Natural Resources Minister John Efford and for Industry Minister David Emerson, who is political minister for British Columbia, said the cabinet will be looking at the issue soon, but wouldn't say exactly when. However, the promise of a cabinet meeting on the 32-year-old moratorium doesn't impress the opposition Conservatives. It amounts to nothing more than a stalling tactic by the federal government, said John Duncan, the party's natural resources critic. Three members of the B.C. cabinet, including Energy Minister Richard Neufeld, were in Ottawa to lobby the federal Liberal government to lift the moratorium. The Ottawa meeting came just four days after the release of a federal report by energy expert Roland Priddle that said 75 per cent of the people who participated in hearings in British Columbia earlier this year were opposed to lifting the exploration moratorium. Neufeld said he was disappointed with the report because it didn't make any solid recommendations and broke no new ground on the issue. Duncan said British Columbia needs an answer from Ottawa about lifting the moratorium, but senses the minority federal government does not know where to move on the issue. "It's my opinion, having watched the government from the Opposition here for 11 years, that the net result of the Priddle report is it leaves the door wide open for the government to not make a decision before the next election," he said. The B.C. ministers met with Emerson, Environment Minister Stephane Dion and representatives of Natural Resources Canada. The offshore moratorium issue was raised in Question Period by northern B.C. New Democrat Nathan Cullen who called on the federal government to support the majority of British Columbians and keep the moratorium in place. The moratorium will protect B.C.'s north coast from B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell's "dangerous pipe dream," Cullen said. Efford said the federal government will review the Priddle report and two others on the issue before making any recommendations on lifting the moratorium. The Royal Society of Canada released a federal report last February that found there are few scientific barriers to oil and gas exploration on B.C.'s north coast, but strict regulations must be in place. An aboriginal report released last week said 100 per cent of northern aboriginals oppose the lifting of the moratorium. Neufeld could not be reached for comment Monday. Phil Jennings, a spokesman for Efford, said the federal government will not have a definitive decision on what to do soon. "Cabinet needs to have a discussion before making a decision on how it moves forward," he said. "Federally we still have a lot of thinking to do." The Priddle report said there appears to be little middle political ground on the moratorium issue. People are firmly opposed to lifting the moratorium or vigorously support the potential removal of the moratorium, he said. Environmentalists fear oil and gas exploration could threaten the sensitive ecosystem of the north coast, especially the Queen Charlotte Islands. Environmentalists seized on Sunday's accident on an oil platform off Newfoundland, calling it a prime example of what could happen off B.C.'s north coast. But such an event in British Columbia would be worse, said Jay Ritchlin of the David Suzuki Foundation. The Hibernia oil field is a couple of hundred kilometres off Newfoundland and the wind and currents will blow a spill out into the Atlantic. But any oil platforms erected off the West Coast would be within 20 to 40 kilometres of either the Queen Charlotte Islands, the northern B.C. coast or the north coast of Vancouver Island. The B.C. government has portrayed north coast oil and gas exploration as an environmentally safe revenue generator that could earn billions of dollars for the province and its struggling coastal communities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Tough subject cpdude, and I really don't have an opinion one way or the other, mainly because the facts pro and con have not presented in a public forum. It does seem disingenuous to have allowed the Hibernia project to go ahead, while the BC exploration has been blocked by this moratorium. Maybe it's time to revisit the idea in public. Let the interested parties present their facts and see where it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted December 7, 2004 Author Share Posted December 7, 2004 I agree it is a tough subject. I also agree there could be an environmental affect. Is that the price of doing business as we are so dependant on oil? Or should we set aside this lucrative option of tapping into these reserves? I say place tough conditions on the oil company’s with stiff penalties for violations and let them drill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Sounds like a rational idea to me, but it would be really interesting to see where the goal posts are set for your "conditions". I would be willing to bet there'd some pretty heated debate as to what they would entail. The environmental protectionists would want them to be so stringent as to make it uneconomical, and in fact, they may even argue that no level of conditions can "gaurantee" full protection for the environment. On the other hand, the oil companies would want the conditions to be little more than window dressing. Should be some interesting theatre watching it play out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted December 7, 2004 Author Share Posted December 7, 2004 Sounds like a rational idea to me, but it would be really interesting to see where the goal posts are set for your "conditions". I would be willing to bet there'd some pretty heated debate as to what they would entail. The environmental protectionists would want them to be so stringent as to make it uneconomical, and in fact, they may even argue that no level of conditions can "gaurantee" full protection for the environment. On the other hand, the oil companies would want the conditions to be little more than window dressing. Should be some interesting theatre watching it play out. Thats the problem, I think the environmental protectionists would be so hard-lined that they would not accept drilling under any conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Or, is it simply that it remains to be seen if drilling with sufficient safety is economically feasible at this time? No one need be the bad guy in this. People quite reasonably want to protect the environment. Whatever that may cost, at some point oil will be lucrative enough to pay for it, and make money for the oil industry as well. People just need to be patient. Eventually it will be safe enough and worth enough to drill for oil, or it will be decided that it's not worth the risk at any cost. Either way, the people of B.C. are the winners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted December 7, 2004 Author Share Posted December 7, 2004 Or, is it simply that it remains to be seen if drilling with sufficient safety is economically feasible at this time? No one need be the bad guy in this. People quite reasonably want to protect the environment. Whatever that may cost, at some point oil will be lucrative enough to pay for it, and make money for the oil industry as well. People just need to be patient. Eventually it will be safe enough and worth enough to drill for oil, or it will be decided that it's not worth the risk at any cost. Either way, the people of B.C. are the winners. How safe is sufficiently safe? Yes, I would like to protect the environment but not at ANY COSTS. I think the sooner we drill the sooner the people of BC will be the winners of their resources that they deserve to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 There's a lot of different resources to consider, not just oil. And a problem in oil can devastate those other resources. It has nothing to do with hugging trees, and everything to do with protecting the business and employee income in jobs that depend on the health of the environment. Many people are unwilling to turn a blind eye to the economic disasters that have happened when good oil turns bad. B.C. has a long history of resource extraction. It's what began the province. We also have long experience with the consequences of irresponsible and unsafe practices in that industry. The province has numerous examples where companies take the product and then disappear, leaving the residents with a toxic mess and an expensive cleanup. People joke (?) all the time about B.C. being the "left coast", but in the past 50 years our provincial governments have been overwhelmingly right-wing. The ratio would be something like 5-1 in time spent under right wing governments versus left wing. Yet even pro-business, right wing administrations finally said, "Enough is enough! Either take the resource safely and clean up your mess, or do business somewhere else." It's only good government, good business and good policy to look after the environment. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted December 7, 2004 Author Share Posted December 7, 2004 It's only good government, good business and good policy to look after the environment. are you running for office? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 I'm sure I can count on your vote! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted December 7, 2004 Author Share Posted December 7, 2004 I'm sure I can count on your vote! Oh you have my vote all right...for mandatory sterilization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Oh you have my vote all right...for mandatory sterilization. Seems to be a rather unchristian retort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted December 8, 2004 Author Share Posted December 8, 2004 Seems to be a rather unchristian retort. I believe in Christ but I am human and a sinner...sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 Gee, and it seemed like such a civil, reasonable discussion to this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted December 8, 2004 Author Share Posted December 8, 2004 Gee, and it seemed like such a civil, reasonable discussion to this point. well, after being slandered and then still having the grace to extend an olive branch, you grab that branch and hit me with it. I'm sorry if I bother you Richard...not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 For a discussion on recent topics and especially on Argentina since 2001, Avi Lewis' and Naomi Klein's documentary, "The Take" may be of interest. More from: http://www.nfb.ca/thetake/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 "well, after being slandered and then still having the grace to extend an olive branch, you grab that branch and hit me with it. I'm sorry if I bother you Richard...not!" If anyone, anywhere, has even the slightest inkling of what cpdude is on about, feel free to enlighten me. cpdude: I can't slander you. I have no idea who you are. You're an anonymous handle on an internet forum. If by "olive branch" you mean the PM you sent me, it was a complaint about what you perceived as my "calling you names." My reply to you was very clear: clean up your act, treat the forum members with respect, and you'll find me nothing but courtesy and respect in return. Every word I wrote yesterday is still here on the forum for all to see. You'll find not a single, even oblique example of me calling you names or making a judgment about you in any way. On the contrary, I've engaged you with civil and respectful discourse. I realize you don't like my opinions, but 4000+ forum members can listen to them without going off the deep end. What's your problem with them? All I can do is offer the same advice/question you put to IFG: Is this how you deal with differences in the cockpit? Learn to respectfully co-exist with opinions which differ from yours. Safety depends on it. Richard Roskell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 Neo, don't always see your side of a discussion but after reviewing your comments in this thread, I can not understand the "slander" comment either. Perhaps CPDUDE can quote chapter and verse (from your post that is). Cheers Rattler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted December 8, 2004 Author Share Posted December 8, 2004 Neo, don't always see your side of a discussion but after reviewing your comments in this thread, I can not understand the "slander" comment either. Perhaps CPDUDE can quote chapter and verse (from your post that is). Cheers Rattler It was in another thread...the spill-over came here. I will just ignore any future comments from the a**hole before things get ugly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 "It was in another thread...the spill-over came here. I will just ignore any future comments from the a**hole before things get ugly!" cpdude, I repeat, What is your problem? Every post I've made in every thread since receiving your complaint has been civil. I've made not a single reference to you these past two days which even obliquely has the slightest negative connotation. What is your problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 It was in another thread...the spill-over came here. I will just ignore any future comments from the a**hole before things get ugly! Still would like to see "chapter and verse". I read most / all threads and perhaps I missed it. Please enlighten us. Thanks Rattler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 It was in another thread...the spill-over came here. I will just ignore any future comments from the a**hole before things get ugly! Is it my imagination or are the audiences getting tougher these days? neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.