No oil tankers, no pipeline. Canada stopped it

So happy to see this as these tankers were going to be numorous and dangers for spilling oil.
It would have been a disaster if that were to happen.
Google;" No oil tankers" and you can add your vote to show your support........

cheering banana wave applause dancing

Comments (7)

Tar sands are probably a more important issue, its causing a lot of environmental problems over there.
You are so right Pat it also uses a terrible amount of water.
If the tankers would spil it would be a disaster for wild life for one.
The natives should be happy to now.

wave wave wave
Correctprofessor No wonder our water tastes like sewerbarf Bottled water is only option. I haven't drank tap water since I moved to Alberta mumbling
)il tanker traffic will increase if the new pipeline is built as planned — from only a few to as many as 220 tankers a year. B.C.'s numerous inlets are difficult to navigate, and oil tanker accidents pose a real risk. Locals know the dangers of travelling through Hecate Strait and other regions.
Oil and gas exploration, along with tanker traffic, has been under a moratorium in B.C. since 1972. Right now, oil tankers in B.C. are required to travel at least 65 kilometres from shore. However, they occasionally foray further inland to deliver condensate to a railhead in Kitimat for delivery to the Alberta tar sands.
How drilling for oil can hurt marine habitats
Damage to the marine environment is inevitable with oil and gas exploration:
Companies conduct seismic surveys before drilling. Bursts of high-pressure air or sound waves are directed at the seabed, creating loud undersea noises that can disrupt the migratory paths and feeding patterns of whales, seals and other marine mammals. These sound waves can also harm fish that have swim bladders, destroy fish eggs and larvae, and temporarily cause fish and other sea creatures to leave the area.
Oil drilling and production platforms release pollution into the surrounding waters almost daily. A single production platform can discharge over 90,000 metric tonnes of toxic waste into the ocean in its lifetime. Since 1997, the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board has recorded 337 oil spills from three rigs operating there, which have dumped an estimated 430,000 litres (or 2,700 barrels) of synthetic drilling fluids and other hydrocarbons into the ocean.)
Only about 15 per cent of spilled oil can be recovered, and that's under the best conditions. When the wind blows above 20 to 25 knots, oil spill clean-up is completely ineffective. Based on the average wind speed for a place like the Queen Charlotte Basin on the West Coast, clean-up would be virtually impossible during winter.
Even small amounts of oil and other drilling fluids can harm sea life over a large area. After a major oil spill, the shorelines can remain polluted for decades. Even now, more than 20 years after the Exxon Valdez lost its toxic cargo in Alaska, raw crude oil is still being found on what now appear to be pristine recovered beaches.
B.C.'s coast is unique because the proposed oil and gas extraction is nearshore, not offshore. An oil spill would be devastating, as the wind and current patterns would ensure that contaminants hit the coast and areas of high economic and ecological importance.
Canada's East Coast is already dealing with the negative effects of offshore oil drilling. Lack of transparency and underreporting from industry are already putting this region at risk.

The solution? Protect the coast from tanker and drilling damage
The only way to keep Canada's coasts oil-free is to keep oil tankers out of our waters and prevent further oil and gas exploration off our coasts. Where activity already takes place, we need to ensure that it's as safe as possible, and that the best spill-response technology is employed.
The West Coast is known as the Galapagos of the north, our East Coast provides several important whale and fish migration routes, and we have only begun to explore our Arctic.
Further development of offshore oil and gas in Canada is just not worth the risk.
Tell our leaders to set up marine protected areas and to implement a strong marine planning process.
Tagged with energy, habitat, marine, marine conservation, oceans, oil
Thinking global, i would not be so happy. They will sail elsewhere.
Several years ago I had invested in a company that made, among other things, safe fracking fluid using enzymes which was completely safe for the environment. It actually worked better than what they were currently using because it could take higher temps than what was available at the time. The only downside was it cost about 3-5% more. Drillers weren't interested. We didn't realize that big oil belongs to the Drill Baby Drill branch of the Church of the Dollar Almighty. The company also made enzymes that would render the cellulose in weeds and corn stalks and cobs able to break down for use in making Ethanol. No interest there either. Refiners would rather make Ethanol from a food like corn because it's a little easier. The company eventually went bankrupt and I took a substantial financial hit.
00by I can imagen the bitterness you must have felled when your idea was rejected and yes because of MONEY
It is always about money.

wave wave wave

Like this Blog?

Do you like this Blog? Why not let the Author know. Click the button to like the Blog. And your like will be added. Likes are anonymous.

Feeling Creative?

butterfly47150: "Tell me what you think"(meet us in the profile reviews)

Would YOU like to post a blog on Connecting Singles?

Would YOU like to post a blog on Connecting Singles? Have you written blogs that you'd like to share with other members? Posting your blogs shows your skill and creativity and helps members get to know you better. Your blog will appear on the Connecting Singles Blogs page and also in a link on your profile page. Click here to post a blog »