Talk:Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines

Energy 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: British Columbia / Alberta Low‑importance

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.

Transport: Maritime

	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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Maritime task force.

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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)

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]

References

^ "5 Big Problems". pipeupagainstenbridge.

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

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]

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge, with myself as the only discussant. KDS4444^Talk 22:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the article Indigenous Opposition to the Northern Gateway Pipelines be moved to this article, Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines, under a section to be called "Indigenous opposition to the pipelines" or something similar. The former seems like it is a subtopic of this article rather than a stand-alone event, so the content may best be organized into one article. KDS4444^Talk 08:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I realize this is premature, but since there has been no discussion on the merger and since I was not even certain it would require/ evoke any discussion in the first place, I am going to go ahead and conduct the merger on my own and close this discussion. If any subsequent editor comes along and disagrees with the merger, please feel free to undo my work and open up the discussion again (and to call me a ninnyhead for closing the discussion early). Please ping me or leave me a note on my talk page if so. KDS4444^Talk 22:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peer Review

Peer Review: Hello! I think your article is very comprehensive. You do a good job of addressing the many aspects of this issue. I would suggest maybe shortening your introduction and moving some of that information to another place in your article. It is all very good information but your introduction is a bit long. In the introduction, I would also say "groups including" instead of "groups like"just because it sounds more professional. Your research is thorough though -- now I would just work on word choice and maybe length adjustments. Good job! --Rolandcharlotte (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

rejected

the pipe has been cancelled — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.149.123 (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Panel+struck+review+pipeline+West+Coast/2467127/story.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?m=%2Findex&nid=500329
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Tens+billions+flow+pipelines+coming+decades/2410643/story.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120917024005/http://dogwoodinitiative.org/no-tankers/do-more/bc-groundswell/ to http://dogwoodinitiative.org/no-tankers/do-more/bc-groundswell
Corrected formatting/usage for http://forestethics.org/enbridge-the-facts
Corrected formatting/usage for http://abacusdata.ca/2012/01/25/canadian-public-opinion-on-northern-gateway-and-keystone-xl-pipelines/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-29/harper-builds-oil-link-with-china-after-obama-keystone-slap-.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-03/harper-builds-oil-link-with-china-after-obama-keystone-slap-.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "5 Big Problems". pipeupagainstenbridge.

[1]