On the Great Plains, We Say "No" to t...

On the Great Plains, We Say "No" to the Keystone XL Pipeline

There are 10 comments on the Common Dreams story from Jun 6, 2013, titled On the Great Plains, We Say "No" to the Keystone XL Pipeline. In it, Common Dreams reports that:

Nancy Zorn and other pipeline opponents directly challenged the pipeline's construction with Zorn bike-locking herself to the digger.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Common Dreams.

SpaceBlues

United States

#1 Jun 6, 2013
Say it loud and clear: NO to XL!
SpaceBlues

United States

#2 Jun 6, 2013
A blue balloon? Nice, groupie. Now, go back to your room.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#3 Jun 6, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Say it loud and clear: NO to XL!
It really makes no sense to ship 'dilbit' over so much sensitive ecosystem just to export it to China (which is the plan). It would make a LOT more sense to parallel the existing pipeline to Vancouver and export it from there, a much shorter route (NOT the Northern Gateway)

But ONLY if the pipeline company agrees to stringent monitoring and safety standards.
SpaceBlues

United States

#4 Jun 6, 2013
This makes sense:

On June 10, we'll launch a five-part editorial series right here on TakePart that looks at what climate change has wrought over the past seven years. From explosion of extreme weather events like Superstorm Sandy to last year's devastating Colorado wildfires, climate change is rapidly changing the world around us. We'll ask: "What's next?"

But that's only the beginning.

http://news.yahoo.com/join-al-gore-jeff-skoll...
SpaceBlues

United States

#5 Jun 9, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Say it loud and clear: NO to XL!
So do 70 different First Nation peoples!

P.S. A blue ballooooooon. It flew away.. like the others.
SpaceBlues

United States

#6 Jun 9, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
It really makes no sense to ship 'dilbit' over so much sensitive ecosystem just to export it to China (which is the plan). It would make a LOT more sense to parallel the existing pipeline to Vancouver and export it from there, a much shorter route (NOT the Northern Gateway)
But ONLY if the pipeline company agrees to stringent monitoring and safety standards.
BC gov refused it.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#7 Jun 9, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>BC gov refused it.
nope. They said they didn't currently SUPPORT it, but the door is open to negotiation on fees and standards.

Time for the company to pony up and get responsible. No way BC will allow another leaky line in their back yard. Especially with Dilbit (hard to clean up)
SpaceBlues

United States

#8 Jun 9, 2013
Splitting words. The news also referred to the feds as the ultimate power; however, they would not ignore the First Nation's refusal.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#9 Jun 10, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Splitting words. The news also referred to the feds as the ultimate power; however, they would not ignore the First Nation's refusal.
Nope. Provinces have a large say in the matter. Sure, the Federal Government is in charge of the National Energy Board review), which they are going to 'whitewash' anyway.

On the environmental assessment, the powers are shared. At the federal level, they fired the scientists and set up a committee to find ways to promote the project with 'scientificy' terms. But BC can refuse the permit on environmental grounds. And BC must supply the pumping energy which it can refuse to do. Bottom line, if the pipeline company goes ahead anyway WITHOUT increased stringent safety and maintenance monitored by the province, there are MANY ways that a pipeline can be shut down by protesters.
SpaceBlues

United States

#10 Jun 10, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Provinces have a large say in the matter. Sure, the Federal Government is in charge of the National Energy Board review), which they are going to 'whitewash' anyway.
On the environmental assessment, the powers are shared. At the federal level, they fired the scientists and set up a committee to find ways to promote the project with 'scientificy' terms. But BC can refuse the permit on environmental grounds. And BC must supply the pumping energy which it can refuse to do. Bottom line, if the pipeline company goes ahead anyway WITHOUT increased stringent safety and maintenance monitored by the province, there are MANY ways that a pipeline can be shut down by protesters.
No.

You did not address what I posted.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Flood Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News La. senator defends 'hostage' comment about Fli... 3 hr Go Blue Forever 1
News Looking back at the 1983 flood that sent a rive... 11 hr Lydia 2
News Former Tropical Storm Julia dumps over a foot o... Sep 21 Lisa 1
News Facing the Change: Toronto grapples with the ef... Sep 20 Fort Mac Denier 3
News Heavy rains from thunderstorms collapse road in... Sep 15 Bonnie Boetjer 1
News 55 amazing photos from the Great Flood of 1986 Sep 14 Canoe eh 1
News No summer floodway use to control Winnipeg rive... Sep 11 JUST DREDGE the R... 2
More from around the web