Jump to content

Talk:Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Skookum1 (talk | contribs) at 14:11, 30 May 2014 (add Canadian English template, having noted/fixed a British spelling). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 7 January 2012‎ (UTC)

More Information!

The pipelines would traverse more than 60 Aboriginal communities, causing a threat to the inhabited Aboriginals. The Enbridge scheme would bring over 225 crude oil supertankers – to B.C.'s North Coast for the first time ever. One oil spill the size of the Exxon-Valdez would forever damage B.C.'s $50 billion coastal economy. Studies show clean-up could cost $9.6 billion, wiping out all projected economic gains from the pipeline [1] T.Kanasamoorthy (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 7 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Tanker Exclusion Zone

There's an article at the Chamber of Shipping site describing the origins of the Tanker Exclusion Zone. The Zone currently in place is larger than the map that is posted (see this Coast Guard page).

Bradcrockett (talk) 04:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the above is good and should be added to the article

I encourage you all above to do the editing yourself. Simply find a news source to reference, sum it up in a few sentences, and be sure to add the reference after the edit line within these symbols: Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).. It is really easy to edit and that way it will get done and be well referenced. Hope you can find a bit of time to do it. All really good points above. This article needs a lot of improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.151.72 (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "5 Big Problems". pipeupagainstenbridge.