Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline (proposed) — How does this make sense #1?

Enbridge Northern Gateway I (madness, hypocrisy, shameful)

.

With interventions this week by the Harper Government into the National Energy Board’s hearings into the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline — it becomes clearer that Mr. Harper, and some of his buddies, might be little more than paranoid little boys — as well as complete hypocrites.

(or working the gears of a marketing machine — remember: marketing is everything and everything is marketing)

The federal Natural Resource Minister came out this past week suggesting that U.S. money flowing into Canadian enviro (and other) groups would not be tolerated and a threat to Canadian sovereignty, bla, bla, bla…

The current Conservative government also basically suggested that the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline would go through regardless; that it would be constructed; and that raw bitumen from Canada’s tar sands would be exported to Asia —

particularly China… which, curiously has invested some $15-20 Billion in the tar sands in recent times as well as significant Chinese interests and $ billions into Enbridge and this proposal.

Without even commenting on the absolute absurdity of making comments such as these at the beginning of a multi-year process of hearing what people have to say about the “proposed” pipeline…

Wondering where the apparent threats to sovereignty may actually be coming from?

And, as the illustration above portrays, WHY?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Why are we looking to export raw bitumen to Asia when we already import over 55% of the oil consumed in Canada. That means that Canadians are paying for refined oil products to come to Canada from places like Venezuela, Algeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Norway, etc. (and yet these “ethical oil” bubbleheads keep singing their tune)

Crazier yet, over 65% of the oil produced in Canada gets shipped-exported south to the U.S.  through some 15,000 km of pipeline.

Even crazier… we are largely locked into this through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)… once the taps are on, you can’t turn them off.

(so really Mr. Harper where are the boogey men, the threats to Canadian sovereignty…?

oh right… maybe in your Conservative predecessors that signed off on NAFTA… hmmmm)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

And now, Harper and Enbridge and others (e.g. BC’s current government) want to ship the unrefined, unprocessed raw bitumen across western Alberta, through the Rockies, through north-eastern, north-central, and northwestern BC, to Kitimat on the BC coast to be loaded onto over 200 supertankers a year and then ply BC’s coastal waters, the North Pacific, over to Asia.

If the tar sands are going to continue to operate — then why don’t we look after our own oil needs first?

Without even commenting on all the other threats posed by this project… How about a National Energy Plan (even Alberta’s current premier is suggesting the same) — before exporting one of the most valuable resources on the planet? (and risking some 1000+ rivers and streams in BC and Alberta and BC’s north coast)

And exporting jobs — isn’t everything about these right-leaning regimes about jobs, jobs, jobs…?

How does this make any sense?

3 thoughts on “Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline (proposed) — How does this make sense #1?

  1. John Wackman

    A friend in BC recently put me on to your blog, and I’ve included a link in my most recent blog post . Nice work.
    Today I see your post about the Enbridge pipeline–your drawing is very effective! It also fits with my November post titled Bold Nebraska–invite you to go see. We are working along parallel lines.

  2. Pingback: Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline (proposed) — How does this make sense #1? | Some/Home

  3. salmon guy Post author

    many thanks John. glad to see another soul telling salmon stories and otherwise. thanks for leaving the comment and the posting the links on your site back here. I have a few more doodling illustrations on the pipeline issue to post in coming days.

    stay in touch. these issues of pipelines and salmon and pipeline pundits blathering on about how “we need ‘facts’, not emotions…” — is only going to heat up. As well as this rather curious ‘ethical oil’ campaign, rather well supplanted in the PM’s offices and others.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *