Reaction to B.C. pipeline announcement

Yesterday, the B.C. government announced five requirements for approval of all new crude oil pipelines in the province, including the planned Northern Gateway pipeline.

The requirements including environmental reviews and protections, as well as a fair share of the economic benefits of the project that takes into account the risk the pipeline poses to the province's environment.

Our story attracted more than 1,000 comments, many of which revolved around B.C. politics, but some address the issue of the pipeline directly.

• "The big problem with pipelines is that the people/regions that are at risk of spills are not usually the people who derive economic benefits from them. It's the people at either end who make the money -- though not so much for B.C., since they're only shipping it, not processing it. Sure, there are some jobs from construction and maintenance, but that's not much compared to the money made from selling the oil. Look at the opposition to the Alberta-Texas pipeline. Most of it came from the northern states -- the ones who would carry most of the risk of pipeline accidents, but whose industries would receive no benefit from it," said Lukehx.
  
  
• "If we as Canadians continue to bash our resource industry and hinder it at all costs, it is at our own peril. We need to be responsible stewards of our environment and our resources. Prohibition doesn't work, and our economy cannot handle complete restriction. We need a measured plan for development while protecting what needs protection. As an economic driver we cannot afford to not develop. The world needs our resources and if we don't sell it some other Third World country will. And they won't be responsible for the environment, so it makes sense we do it and do it responsibly. The environmentalists may stop Canada but they will do more harm to the environment by allowing less ethical countries to fill the void. Big picture, folks," said sweepy.
  
  
• "Bigger picture, sweepy: alternative energy. We don't have to burn up every last speck of fossil fuel before we think about what happens when it's gone," replied superanne.
  
  
• "Yes, we need a measured approach.  Currently, government policy does not 'bash our resource industry.' It connives with it to force through any and all developments no matter how risky to our investment and our long-term energy self-sufficiency. Only those that have resources can develop them. We have them and it is our responsibility to develop them in a sustainable and environmentally responsible way," replied ChrisInOttawa
  
  
• "Fine, then pipe the diluted bitumen east and refine it in Canada instead of importing crude from Venezuela and others," replied upanddown.
  
  
•  "I may be a tad naive but wouldn't it solve a lot of this issue if there were to be refineries built in this country? Instead of always giving our resources away to the (usually) highest bidder, that we make money and create employment from our resources? For as long as I can remember we Canadians have tripped over ourselves raffling off our future for short term gain," said icewrench.
  
  
• "There are already many refineries in this country. Building more is very expensive and there is capacity elsewhere. In any event, the refined product still has to be transported for sale somehow - like in a pipeline," replied LarryRight.
  
  
• "It's ridiculous for anyone to believe that if a super tanker were to spill its load on BC's coast, that it could ever be cleaned up. They can't even clean up rivers that have been affected by measly little pipeline spills. No amount of reviews, money, or safety standards is going to change that unfortunately," said TheBestFromBoth.

Thank you, as always, for following our news coverage. Please use the comments below to challenge any of these points and continue the conversation.