Talk:Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines

Energy C‑class Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: British Columbia / Alberta Unassessed

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.

Transport: Maritime Unassessed

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Maritime task force.

Wet'suwet'en First Nation opposition to NGP

I believe this article would be stronger if it included a section called 'Ongoing opposition'. The Wet'suwet'en First Nation has adamantly opposed the pipeline. Dogwood Initiative and ForestEthics have ongoing campaigns against the pipeline. Sources: Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/native-group-calls-for-pipeline-boycott/article1433630/ Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://oilsandstruth.org/wet%E2%80%99suwet%E2%80%99en-layout-opposition-enbridge-gateway

Jaeleaj (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While this has improved, the opposition is FAR more serious than that. More than half of all BC residents oppose the pipeline and it has far less than majority support within Canada. Literally all 61 First Nations in the way oppose it, and that includes many that never ceded any land. [1]

Removal of the language the First Nations actually used, claiming WP:RS as justification, is ridiculous. The exact words are a legally binding statement by a valid authority, and if they are under-reported, that is certainly not an excuse for not including them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.46.232 (talk • contribs) 7 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Railway Proposal

A newspaper article in the Edmonton Journal a few months ago mentioned that the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways were prepared to begin moving crude oil from Alberta to the Pacific coast in dedicated trains of tank cars. It would be good to dig up some information on this proposal, and possibly add a section on it to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4-6-0ARM1392 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keystone XL

The geopolitics of this project relative to Keystone XL should be detailed - delays in Keystone XL are inevitably accompanied by threats to speed up Northern Gateway and sell "our" Canadian oil to China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.46.232 (talk • contribs) 7 January 2012‎ (UTC)

TransCanada criticism

TransCanada, who is trying to build Keystone XL, has publicly said that Northern Gateway is far more controversial and divisive and dissed the project in public. This is worth noting as it's a lack of uniform support from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers as a lobby, who never met any dirty oil that they did not like. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.46.232 (talk • contribs) 7 January 2012‎ (UTC)

"Unnecessary"

Independent reports call the Northern Gateway proposal "unnecessary" [2]. What other analyses of its value are out there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.46.232 (talk • contribs) 7 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Competition from Alaska

Alaskan tanker projects compete with Northern Gateway for Asian markets and should also be mentioned [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.46.232 (talk • contribs) 7 January 2012‎ (UTC)

BC citizen opposition

Canada.com is a major media source. Why was it omitted? [4]. It states that 80% of BC residents oppose the tanker traffic that the pipeline necessarily implies. It also refers to the 2010 poll that showed a majority of BC residents opposed also.

Admittedly it has a bad title that grossly misleads the reader, but the raw facts within it, with some interpretation, remain valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.46.232 (talk • contribs) 7 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Tanker Exclusion Zone

The "Tanker Moratorium in British Columbia" is confusing the moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration with the tanker ban. There's an article at http://www.chamber-of-shipping.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=475&Itemid=87 and a reference to the origins of the exploration moratorium in the Priddle Report. We currently have in place a Tanker Exclusion Zone that is larger than the map currently posted (see http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0003909). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradcrockett (talk • contribs) 05:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]