no pipeline, no tankers, no problem 2

1125 posts / 0 new
Last post
Martin N.

progressive17 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

No one has mentioned the price inflation of every commodity due to energy inputs cost increases. While an individual consumer may think they are unaffected because they live in a walk up garret and ride a bicycle to the green grocer, that Mexican tomato or organic kale is likely not arriving by bicycle.

In the event that Alberta stops the flow of oil to BC, the price surge and shortages will be devastating. Of course, those nice people in Washington State will be glad to supply fuel to BC in the short term. They are so nice that they will not take advantage of a captive market......will they? There is no barge or tanker unloading facility for such fuel so it must be trucked.

Bullshit. The world is awash in oil. We can ship it in from anywhere in the world at a much lower price than the crap they are making in Alberta.

Ship it in....tankers? Whatever happened to protecting the beautiful coast of BC? 

There is a lot less environmental risk in docking once in a while and pumping the shit right into the storage tanks than piping it hundreds of kilometers through watersheds and then into waiting tankers. There would be constant pressure from the shit through the pipeline, making for a much higher risk of a shitloss on the coast and anywhere in between. Oil is extremely toxic to fresh water. A few gallons can kill a whole lake.

Not only that, but there are always spills through pipelines. They use the lowest bidder and the cheapest materials and labour.

You, the oil industry and its shills have had billions go through your hands. You could have built a refinery for it, but instead you paid 15% dividends and bought back stock. The processed oil in the form of gasoline and diesel would have sold for much more, and would have been transported much more safely. And maybe the poor sucker car drivers in Vancouver would have got a break.

You fucked yourselves. We just want to put you out of your misery as soon as possible so you can find real jobs helping people.

No-one but the US buys the tar sands shit anyway (and at a deep discount at that, as it is such crappy shit), so the idea to pipe it to Vancouver/Burnaby is hare-brained at least. It makes no economic sense, as Kinder Morgan is beginning to admit to its shareholders.

If you want government money to go into a shit program like this, you are no better than the Marxist-Leninists who destroyed the Aral Sea.

A large number of Canadians say "fuck the oil industry and the pipeline it oozed in on". Are their democratic sentiments of no concern to you?

Seeing as we can import the shit cheaper than making it domestically, I see no sense at all in a domestic industry. Statistics show that even as the number of cars in Canada is increasing, the amount of gasoline consumed per car is declining. Hitch your wagon to a falling star.

Oh dear, empty disingenuous  rhetoric is no defense for hypocracy. Nor is vulgarity. Importing oil to spite your own country appears reasonable only to the entitled.

You make no sense whatsoever with your ill thought rant. It will take years to build the infrastructure required to import oil into BC, not counting the new NEB regulatory environment. Try informing yourself of the circumstances of BC's captive market rather than dreaming up impossible scenarios.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:
 You make no sense whatsoever with your ill thought rant. It will take years to build the infrastructure required to import oil into BC, not counting the new NEB regulatory environment. Try informing yourself of the circumstances of BC's captive market rather than dreaming up impossible scenarios.

Notley makes no sense if she thinks the oil industry will be willing to cut of their nose to spite their face. Cutting off sales to BC might hurt BC but it will hurt the oil companies as much or more. Where will they stockpile the oil no longer going to BC? Their other options are already maximized. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..this may be used by the feds as leverage

After massive investments, Trudeau government puts public transit on track

quote:

But most of this money isn't out the door yet. This year's budget noted that the government is finalizing negotiations with the provinces and territories to distribute infrastructure funding.

Infrastructure Minister Amarjeet Sohi missed his self-imposed March deadline to reach funding deals on infrastructure, including transit, with provinces and territories. But he insisted it was just a matter of finding the time to sign. The Monday after, he did reach a deal with B.C. over $4.1-billion in funding, in part for transit.

The federal Liberals and the BC NDP government will each cover 40 per cent of the project costs, while the cities involved in the transit projects will fill the remaining gap with fares or taxes.

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:
 Oh dear, empty disingenuous  rhetoric is no defense for hypocracy. Nor is vulgarity. Importing oil to spite your own country appears reasonable only to the entitled.

You make no sense whatsoever with your ill thought rant. It will take years to build the infrastructure required to import oil into BC, not counting the new NEB regulatory environment. Try informing yourself of the circumstances of BC's captive market rather than dreaming up impossible scenarios.

BC is perfectly willing to continue buying oil from Alberta for its refineries. If Alberta refuses to sell oil to BC it is Alberta being spiteful. Buying it elsewhere is just the logical reaction. I don't think the BC refineries will need massive new infrastructure to get oil from tankers rather than from the pipeline. 

It's not going to happen anyway. It's an empty threat. The oil companies are not going agree to slow down production or build new facilities to hold the oil that is currently being sold to BC. They aren't going to shut down the oil flowing through the current Transmountain pipeline. 

Let's say for the sake of argument Alberta does shut down the existing Transmountain pipeline. (Another win for environmentalists) Even if BC has to pay through the nose to get its fuel from elsewhere it will do it rather than set a precedent that Alberta can force its demands on BC through economic coercion. It won't take that much infrastructure to accept oil from tankers rather than pump oil into them. 

Alberta is the province being spiteful. It will turn BCers against Alberta more than against Horgan. Nobody likes having their arm twisted. When it happens the victim ensures they can't be placed in that position again. Alberta forcing BC to buy their oil elsewhere will just mean BC will no longer be a captive market. Once the new supply lines are created Alberta will be facing a competitive market. 

Bullying is all the oil industry has ever known and they have been unwilling to learn. They are dinosaurs and their own worst enemy. Environmentalists have oil companies to thank for being so blindly self-defeating. Now it's a matter of too little too late. Oil spills are constant. The idea that the NEB protects the environment is ridiculous. Taxpayers taking on the financial risks is corporate welfare. Brad Wall has the nerve to ask the federal government to pick up the tab for cleaning up orphan oil wells. I don't want to pick up the tab for orphan pipelines or orphan oil sands. 

The most wonderful thing about all this is that it is proving that the people rule. That is part of democracy and it is part of the rule of law. 

Aside from maybe Saskatchewan and Manitoba the provinces will support BC not Alberta. Most of the provinces will be on the side of protecting their own powers and the independence of provinces to block projects considered harmful to their environments. Economically BC is heavily invested in the environment from tourism to forestry to fishing. 

There is no constitutional crisis unless the federal government tries to use force or coercion against BC. 

Pondering

epaulo13 wrote:

..this may be used by the feds as leverage

After massive investments, Trudeau government puts public transit on track

quote:

But most of this money isn't out the door yet. This year's budget noted that the government is finalizing negotiations with the provinces and territories to distribute infrastructure funding.

Infrastructure Minister Amarjeet Sohi missed his self-imposed March deadline to reach funding deals on infrastructure, including transit, with provinces and territories. But he insisted it was just a matter of finding the time to sign. The Monday after, he did reach a deal with B.C. over $4.1-billion in funding, in part for transit.

The federal Liberals and the BC NDP government will each cover 40 per cent of the project costs, while the cities involved in the transit projects will fill the remaining gap with fares or taxes.

This won't be used as leverage. It's easy for Kenny and pundits to talk. This would cause a constitutional crisis. B.C. hasn't done anything illegal. All they have done is said they are formulating a question to ask the Supreme Court if they have jurisdiction based on their mandate to protect the environment. To withhold any federal funds from BC to prevent them from appealing to the Supreme Court for a ruling is unthinkable. 

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

The mistake we made in the beginning was in giving resources control to the provinces and that is the reason one part of the country is pitted against another.

It was a huge mistake giving jurisdiction over non-renewable resources to the provinces instead of the federal government. The constitution's guarantee of provincial equalization hasn't been able to make up for the unequal level of provincial non-renewable resources. It seems like the windfall from Canada's huge bounty of oil and gas has gone mainly to keeping Alberta's tax rates the lowest in the country, especially eliminating the need for Alberta to have a sales tax.

It seems that the Supreme Court will have to determine the legal rights of the provinces concerning the Alberta-BC Kinder Morgan situation.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Pondering

JKR wrote:
NorthReport wrote:

The mistake we made in the beginning was in giving resources control to the provinces and that is the reason one part of the country is pitted against another.

It was a huge mistake giving jurisdiction over non-renewable resources to the provinces instead of the federal government. The constitution's guarantee of provincial equalization hasn't been able to make up for the unequal level of provincial non-renewable resources. It seems like the windfall from Canada's huge bounty of oil and gas has gone mainly to keeping Alberta's tax rates the lowest in the country, especially eliminating the need for Alberta to have a sales tax. It seems that the Supreme Court will have to determine the legal rights of the provinces concerning the Alberta-BC Kinder Morgan situation.

Resource control wasn't given to the provinces. They already had resource control. They refused to give it up. The provinces had to be persuaded to join.  

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..more than 3,000 have called so far. the goal is 5,000.

Call a Minister about Kinder Morgan

Federal cabinet ministers just held an emergecny meeting to discuss how to ram the Kinder Morgan pipeline forward. In a press conference following the meeting, Minister's didn't reveal their plans -- and that means we still have time to convince them to back down. [1]

Pondering

Make that 3001.  They didn't reveal their plans because there isn't a lot they can do without provoking a constitutional challenge. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..txs for calling.

..i don't share your confidence though. i have no doubt that there is plenty the feds can and will be doing. we have seen that the industry has tremendus power. this includes suing the government via nafta. it's wait and see. and if we can counter whatever is done.

Pondering

epaulo13 wrote:

..txs for calling.

..i don't share your confidence though. i have no doubt that there is plenty the feds can and will be doing. we have seen that the industry has tremendus power. this includes suing the government via nafta. it's wait and see. and if we can counter whatever is done.

What's interesting is that it's the feds that get sued under NAFTA not the provincial governments. All Horgan has done so far is speculate and say that he is going to apply to the Supreme Court once he has a question formulated. He hasn't actually done anything. That's why supporters are so furious. Opponents are winning based on the clock. 

Another point not being mentioned is there are still court cases winding their way through the system. Work on the terminal is assuming the outcome will be favourable to going ahead. Expanding the terminal is a way to put "facts on the ground" for which the losses could be recouped under NAFTA. It's added pressure to force BC to allow it through. 

XL has been approved, now the oil industry has backed off with the excuse that they don't like the route because it's a bit longer. How ridiculous. Energy East would have been longer.  Either they desperately need a new pipeline or they don't. 

Alberta's theatrics over Transmountain should be pointed at XL Keystone developers for not taking yes for an answer. 

mmphosis

3,230 -- Thanks for the link epaulo13.  

I managed to leave messages with 5 out of 6 of the ministers.  I couldn't get through to Hon. Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Foreign Affairs, so I sent an email to: chrystia.freeland@parl.gc.ca

https://dogwoodbc.ca/petitions/john-horgan-kinder-morgan/

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
There is a lot less environmental risk in docking once in a while and pumping the shit right into the storage tanks than piping it hundreds of kilometers through watersheds and then into waiting tankers. There would be constant pressure from the shit through the pipeline, making for a much higher risk of a shitloss on the coast and anywhere in between. Oil is extremely toxic to fresh water. A few gallons can kill a whole lake.

So why is all the talk about the B.C. coast and tanker spills, and not Lake Nowhere and that possible leak (assuming such a pipeline even crosses Lake Nowhere)?

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
 Oh dear, empty disingenuous  rhetoric is no defense for hypocracy. Nor is vulgarity. Importing oil to spite your own country appears reasonable only to the entitled.

You make no sense whatsoever with your ill thought rant. It will take years to build the infrastructure required to import oil into BC, not counting the new NEB regulatory environment. Try informing yourself of the circumstances of BC's captive market rather than dreaming up impossible scenarios.

BC is perfectly willing to continue buying oil from Alberta for its refineries. If Alberta refuses to sell oil to BC it is Alberta being spiteful. Buying it elsewhere is just the logical reaction. I don't think the BC refineries will need massive new infrastructure to get oil from tankers rather than from the pipeline. 

It's not going to happen anyway. It's an empty threat. The oil companies are not going agree to slow down production or build new facilities to hold the oil that is currently being sold to BC. They aren't going to shut down the oil flowing through the current Transmountain pipeline. 

Let's say for the sake of argument Alberta does shut down the existing Transmountain pipeline. (Another win for environmentalists) Even if BC has to pay through the nose to get its fuel from elsewhere it will do it rather than set a precedent that Alberta can force its demands on BC through economic coercion. It won't take that much infrastructure to accept oil from tankers rather than pump oil into them. 

Alberta is the province being spiteful. It will turn BCers against Alberta more than against Horgan. Nobody likes having their arm twisted. When it happens the victim ensures they can't be placed in that position again. Alberta forcing BC to buy their oil elsewhere will just mean BC will no longer be a captive market. Once the new supply lines are created Alberta will be facing a competitive market. 

Bullying is all the oil industry has ever known and they have been unwilling to learn. They are dinosaurs and their own worst enemy. Environmentalists have oil companies to thank for being so blindly self-defeating. Now it's a matter of too little too late. Oil spills are constant. The idea that the NEB protects the environment is ridiculous. Taxpayers taking on the financial risks is corporate welfare. Brad Wall has the nerve to ask the federal government to pick up the tab for cleaning up orphan oil wells. I don't want to pick up the tab for orphan pipelines or orphan oil sands. 

The most wonderful thing about all this is that it is proving that the people rule. That is part of democracy and it is part of the rule of law. 

Aside from maybe Saskatchewan and Manitoba the provinces will support BC not Alberta. Most of the provinces will be on the side of protecting their own powers and the independence of provinces to block projects considered harmful to their environments. Economically BC is heavily invested in the environment from tourism to forestry to fishing. 

There is no constitutional crisis unless the federal government tries to use force or coercion against BC. 

Do you know how many refineries BC has?

Are you aware of how long it takes to construct oil and gas infrastructure?

Notley will not shut down oil flow to BC. Alberta does not have the jurisdiction to do so anymore than BC does to stop Alberta oil. But....shortages do happen.

How long do you think it will take to get the permits and approvals for such a venture, considering approval for importing oil is a federal responsibility?

 

 

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

What's funniest to me, perhaps because I don't drive a car and never buy gasoline, is the idea that the best way to deal with climate change is to stop producing and refining dinosaur juice, rather than to stop buying and using it.

It's like a cocaine user urging the authorities to double down on their efforts to stamp out cocaine trafficking to finally win the 'war on drugs', but making no noticeable effort to stop buying and using.

I think the best time to discuss shutting down all the drilling and fracking and refining and transporting would be when the world says "I'd rather ride my bike", and not when we're still ready to pitch a fit when the local gas price goes up one cent a litre overnight.

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

Make that 3001.  They didn't reveal their plans because there isn't a lot they can do without provoking a constitutional challenge. 

Really? Is challenging the federal government's authority under Sec92 not a "constitutional challenge"?

It's amusing that the federal government is habitually timid about using its constitutionally granted authority, allowing provinces to create all sorts of trade barrier mayhem and now, the provinces are challenging the federal government's right to have said authority in the first place. 

BC has only implied they will ask the SCC the question because they already know the answer the court will give them. It is only the value of the delay and uncertainty that it causes KM that is needed.

BC will never take the question to the SCC because they already know that the decision will only affirm federal powers and permanently render provinces under the federal thumb. Better keep the Feds timid than embolden them. Better to throw empty threats about than take the political circus from activist fantasys into legal realities.

Martin N.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

What's funniest to me, perhaps because I don't drive a car and never buy gasoline, is the idea that the best way to deal with climate change is to stop producing and refining dinosaur juice, rather than to stop buying and using it.

It's like a cocaine user urging the authorities to double down on their efforts to stamp out cocaine trafficking to finally win the 'war on drugs', but making no noticeable effort to stop buying and using.

I think the best time to discuss shutting down all the drilling and fracking and refining and transporting would be when the world says "I'd rather ride my bike", and not when we're still ready to pitch a fit when the local gas price goes up one cent a litre overnight.

What's funniest to me is the thought of importing foreign  oil by tanker into BC to prevent a pipeline exporting oil by tanker from BC. Do they think their fair weather friends in enviroloonery will be any more favourable to this scheme because the oil is going the other way?

 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:
NorthReport wrote:

The mistake we made in the beginning was in giving resources control to the provinces and that is the reason one part of the country is pitted against another.

It was a huge mistake giving jurisdiction over non-renewable resources to the provinces instead of the federal government. The constitution's guarantee of provincial equalization hasn't been able to make up for the unequal level of provincial non-renewable resources. It seems like the windfall from Canada's huge bounty of oil and gas has gone mainly to keeping Alberta's tax rates the lowest in the country, especially eliminating the need for Alberta to have a sales tax. It seems that the Supreme Court will have to determine the legal rights of the provinces concerning the Alberta-BC Kinder Morgan situation.

Resource control wasn't given to the provinces. They already had resource control. They refused to give it up. The provinces had to be persuaded to join.  

The point I was trying to make was that it hasn't worked out well for Canada for its resources to be a provincial jurisdiction while it's equalization program has not been able to maintain sufficient provincial equality. Unfortunately the Constitution helped create a system that led to the wasting of Canada's petroleum resources. This is obvious when comparing ourselves with Norway where they have been able to save money from their petroleum industry for their future generations. Here in Canada Alberta is once again counting on another oil boom to balance its budget in five years and allow it to continue to have no sales tax and the lowest taxes in the country. The only way Notley or Kenney have of keeping the "Alberta Advantage'" over the rest of Canada is to increase oil production and prey for increased oil prices. It seems to me that this has not been a good way to manage our petroleum industry for Canada's long term benefit. The "Alberta Advantage" should have been the "Canada Advantage." Maybe rectifying our equalization program could help but Alberta would oppose that too tooth and nail. Many there want to abolish our equalization program to enhance the "Alberta Advantage."

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..7 min video

#ShellKnew: Green Group Sues Oil Giant Over Climate Impact

Internal documents show the oil giant has known for decades that fossil fuel activities would lead to catastrophic climate change, and that it deliberately mislead the public. Friends of the Earth Netherlands says it will take Shell to court if it doesn't do more to cut its climate impact. We speak to campaign leader Freek Bersch

quote:

A trove of internal documents and reports of the oil giant Royal Dutch Shell shows that oil giant also had known for three decades that fossil fuel products would lead to catastrophic climate change. This according to an investigative report done by the Dutch newspaper De Correspondent. Interestingly, Shell back then also predicted that environmental and NGOs would sue fossil fuel companies claiming damages for extreme weather on the grounds of neglecting what scientists have been saying for years. And it turns out that Milieudefensie, the Dutch wing of Friends of the Earth, has done just that, filing a lawsuit against Shell requiring them to comply with climate targets set out by the Paris agreement to limit global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius. With us to discuss the lawsuit is Freek Bersch, who is a campaign leader at Milieudefensie, Friends of the Earth in Netherlands. I thank you so much for joining us, Freek.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

mmphosis wrote:

3,230 -- Thanks for the link epaulo13.  

I managed to leave messages with 5 out of 6 of the ministers.  I couldn't get through to Hon. Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Foreign Affairs, so I sent an email to: chrystia.freeland@parl.gc.ca

https://dogwoodbc.ca/petitions/john-horgan-kinder-morgan/

 

..nice. glad to see the increase. 3,530 now.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Martin N. wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

No one has mentioned the price inflation of every commodity due to energy inputs cost increases. While an individual consumer may think they are unaffected because they live in a walk up garret and ride a bicycle to the green grocer, that Mexican tomato or organic kale is likely not arriving by bicycle.

In the event that Alberta stops the flow of oil to BC, the price surge and shortages will be devastating. Of course, those nice people in Washington State will be glad to supply fuel to BC in the short term. They are so nice that they will not take advantage of a captive market......will they? There is no barge or tanker unloading facility for such fuel so it must be trucked.

Bullshit. The world is awash in oil. We can ship it in from anywhere in the world at a much lower price than the crap they are making in Alberta.

Ship it in....tankers? Whatever happened to protecting the beautiful coast of BC? 

There is a lot less environmental risk in docking once in a while and pumping the shit right into the storage tanks than piping it hundreds of kilometers through watersheds and then into waiting tankers. There would be constant pressure from the shit through the pipeline, making for a much higher risk of a shitloss on the coast and anywhere in between. Oil is extremely toxic to fresh water. A few gallons can kill a whole lake.

Not only that, but there are always spills through pipelines. They use the lowest bidder and the cheapest materials and labour.

You, the oil industry and its shills have had billions go through your hands. You could have built a refinery for it, but instead you paid 15% dividends and bought back stock. The processed oil in the form of gasoline and diesel would have sold for much more, and would have been transported much more safely. And maybe the poor sucker car drivers in Vancouver would have got a break.

You fucked yourselves. We just want to put you out of your misery as soon as possible so you can find real jobs helping people.

No-one but the US buys the tar sands shit anyway (and at a deep discount at that, as it is such crappy shit), so the idea to pipe it to Vancouver/Burnaby is hare-brained at least. It makes no economic sense, as Kinder Morgan is beginning to admit to its shareholders.

If you want government money to go into a shit program like this, you are no better than the Marxist-Leninists who destroyed the Aral Sea.

A large number of Canadians say "fuck the oil industry and the pipeline it oozed in on". Are their democratic sentiments of no concern to you?

Seeing as we can import the shit cheaper than making it domestically, I see no sense at all in a domestic industry. Statistics show that even as the number of cars in Canada is increasing, the amount of gasoline consumed per car is declining. Hitch your wagon to a falling star.

Oh dear, empty disingenuous  rhetoric is no defense for hypocracy. Nor is vulgarity. Importing oil to spite your own country appears reasonable only to the entitled.

You make no sense whatsoever with your ill thought rant. It will take years to build the infrastructure required to import oil into BC, not counting the new NEB regulatory environment. Try informing yourself of the circumstances of BC's captive market rather than dreaming up impossible scenarios.

You are a shill for the most disgusting stuff in the world and you call me vulgar? That is a laugh. What you see on this board is very mild compared to what I am capable of. 

How am I spiting my own country by importing cheaper oil than you can produce? Being economically more efficient than what you want is good for Canada. If I pay less for energy, I can make more stops for the same dollar. Which increases my country's GDP. Nobody but the US wants our oil shit, and even they won't pay fair market value for it, because even they can produce it cheaper.

When you turn Canada into a petrostate, the Canadian dollar goes up to par with the US dollar, and the majority of Canadians who work in manufacturing and services are fucked. The oil business is actually bad for Canada. We should terminate it as soon as possible, and start cleaning up the mess.

https://globalnews.ca/news/1935820/national-energy-board-launches-map-of...

692 oil spills in Canada alone since 2008. In the US, the number is more like 10,000. The question is not whether your beloved pipelines will spill, but when. Aquifers simply cannot afford oil spills under any circumstances. You may not care if you pollute the drinking water, but maybe you have a hidden agenda. Maybe you want to use oil to pollute the water, so you can make a profit on the water too. Maybe you own shares in Nestle. At least I know they are not paying 15% dividends like your beloved oil companies did.

You are promoting a boom-bust commodities business which adds no value at all. A few people get rich, but what do they have to show for it now? You have had billions, as I said, and you did nothing to secure your future by adding value to the shit you want to pump. Your predicament is all your own fault. You have no one to blame but yourself.

Oh, and by the way, it is spelled "hypocrisy". I know it very well. As the fundamental philosophy of the English-speaking world, It is the air that I breathe.

Martin N.

How many straw men can you fit into one post before your head explodes with the effort? You need some circus music to accompany such uninformed ranting.

Since the effort to reach tidewater with oil products is based on the fact that this oil is presently sold at a discount to global oil prices, how do you think you can buy oil cheaper on the world market? Is there a market discount for self- righteous hypocrites that only smug 'activists are aware of? That idea is almost as idiotic as the one of protesting oil Export tanker traffic by proposing importing by tanker because, you know, its different.

Do you have any idea of BC's oil demand? Or it's refinery capacity? Try thinking rather than ranting, genius.

By the way, you better save some angst for when the dust settles and KM is under construction. Horgan is already looking for a way out of this mess. Even Heyman knows the jig is up. It's been a laff  riot but the grown ups are taking over. Junior was sent home after recess so he couldn't screw up Question. Period

Martin N.

Oh, and by the way, it is spelled "hypocrisy". I know it very well. As the fundamental philosophy of the English-speaking world, It is the air that I breathe.

Gee, you really know a chap's on a roll when he is reduced to nitpicking spelling. 

NorthReport
epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..i keep hearing over and over again that investings in projects like the tarsands, lng and pipelines is investing in old technowlegy. that because of this canada is falling behind globally in transitioning away from that technowlegy and at the end of the day we will pay a heavy price for this.

..i believe this is understood by most folk. they also understand the power of capitial. this piece i post upthread Is the Oil Industry Canada's 'Deep State'? shows just how far that power extends.

..there is in fact alternatives. there always has been but money and power have always trumped common sense.

Policies for a just transition to a zero-carbon economy in Canada

Communities across Canada need a national strategy to ensure the move to a zero-carbon economy leaves no one behind. For the first time, this report uses census data to identify the regions in each province with the greatest reliance on fossil fuel jobs. The new analysis comes after the federal government announced last fall it will launch a task force in 2018 on a “just transition” policy framework for certain sectors. In general, the broad goal of a just transition is to ensure an equitable, productive outcome for all workers in the decarbonized future.

Among the study’s findings:

  • Fossil fuel dependence is overwhelmingly concentrated in Alberta, with a few hot spots in Saskatchewan and British Columbia;

  • However, there are communities from coast to coast where the share of fossil fuel jobs is relatively high. Bay Roberts, N.L.; Cape Breton, N.S.; Saint John, N.B.; Sarnia, Ont.; Estevan, Sask; Wood Buffalo, Alta.; and Fort St. John, B.C., have the greatest share of fossil fuel workers in their respective provinces;

  • In addition to a national just transition strategy and targeted policy measures for fossil fuel-dependent communities, Canada’s social security programs should be enhanced to better support workers in any industry facing job loss and retraining costs;

  • Governments must also invest in workforce development programs to ensure there are enough skilled workers to fill new jobs created by the zero-carbon economy.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..and directly from the study..pdf

Job creation potential of the zero-carbon economy

Decarbonization will cost jobs. It will also create new ones, though not necessarily for the same people in the same places. Counting those future jobs is difficult, but reasonable estimates are possible. By combining the historical job creation rate for investments in particular sectors (e.g., 90 operations jobs per gigawatt of installed wind power) 32 with the expected value of new zero-carbon investments, several organizations have attempted to model the overall job-creation potential of the shift to a zero-carbon Canadian economy.

A recent report from the Columbia Institute estimates the transition to a low-carbon economy will create 3.9 million direct jobs in Canada by 2050. 33 Most of these “green jobs” are connected to investments in energy efficiency improvements, followed by investments in solar and wind power projects. When indirect and induced jobs are included, the report claims, Canada could create 19.8 million new jobs by 2050. Although the authors assume significant new spending by governments—hundreds of billions of dollars in electricity transmission infrastructure alone—many of those jobs will be created based on infrastructure spending that has already been budgeted.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Pondering wrote:

Alberta's theatrics over Transmountain should be pointed at XL Keystone developers for not taking yes for an answer. 

..i believe the appetite for keystone is gone. other pipelines have replaced the need for it in the states. and line 3 is meeting growing opposition. even the minnesota department of commerce has condemned it. plus the divestment movement have been having excellent successes. it really difficult these days to get a pipeline through.

NorthReport
epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..leadership skills right northreport. :) 

Martin N.

Yeah, that's about the size of it. If Horgan does a good job of it, Junior may throw in funding for a bridge or two as a bonus. Fake outrage all around among the politicals and the schnooks on both extremes get played and neutered.

NorthReport
Martin N.

It's rather ironic that the profits from that dirty eevil oil will be the most likely source of funding for new renewables technology as the oil companies morph into renewables companies over the next decades.

The champions of the new age never define a path forward from an oil economy toward a renewable one, preferring instant gratification of their ideals over the much harder path of actually defining and costing such outcomes. But, progress is still progress and having oil revenues to fund it is preferable to a head full of wet dreams and a pocket full of lint.

Martin N.

It's rather ironic that the profits from that dirty eevil oil will be the most likely source of funding for new renewables technology as the oil companies morph into renewables companies over the next decades.

The champions of the new age never define a path forward from an oil economy toward a renewable one, preferring instant gratification of their ideals over the much harder path of actually defining and costing such outcomes. But, progress is still progress and having oil revenues to fund it is preferable to a head full of wet dreams and a pocket full of lint.

Martin N.

VICTORIA — The New Democrats knew from the first day in office that their election threat to do everything to “stop” the Kinder Morgan expansion was both inappropriate and unlawful.

 

So said Environment Minister George Heyman this week, confirming to the legislature what Premier John Horgan confided last July in naming him to cabinet.

“He was very clear that as part of transition, he had been given the legal advice that stopping the project was beyond the jurisdiction of B.C.,” said Heyman during debate on his ministry budget Monday.

“To talk about it or frame our actions around doing that, would be inappropriate and unlawful. That is why we could not do that. He advised me to not do that.”

Adding to his account of that first meeting with the incoming premier, Heyman confirmed the legal advice explicitly contradicted NDP commitments:

“It became clear, through listening to legal advice, that we did not have the authority to stop a project that had been approved by the federal government within its jurisdiction … We couldn’t simply do what we initially, in Opposition, thought was an option for government.”

http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vaughn-palmer-ndp-tool-box-le...

Martin N.

Lately, it’s one of the few things that oil boosters and environmental activists can agree upon: Calling Vancouver a hypocrite for opposing carbon emissions while also being the continent’s largest coal port.

And both camps are correct. According to the data, Canada’s mecca of anti-pipeline sentiment does indeed rank as the largest single exporter of coal in North America.

Vancouver’s various coal facilities exported 36.8 million tonnes of coal in 2017, according to the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority.

This places the B.C. city well above Norfolk, Virginia, the busiest coal port in the United States. Despite a massive spike in U.S. coal exports for 2017, only 31.5 million tonnes of coal moved out of Norfolk last year.

Vancouver’s coal exports also dwarf the total coal production for the entire country of Mexico. According to data gathered by the U.S. Congressional Research Service, Mexican mines have produced no more than 16 million tonnes of coal per year since 2006.

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/yes-anti-pipeline-vancouver-really...

Oh my! It's sure a good thing that that progressive individual taught me the correct spelling of 'hypocrite' because it seems to be appearing  quite a bit now. :)

NorthReport

Why isn't Trudeau inviting federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh to join him on Sunday to help him sort out the BC & AB NDP family squabble?

As it is looking more and more like the pipeline deal has already been hatched in the back room between Trudeau and Notley to give Horgan the shaft.

Trudeau does not want a resolution with Horgan, and is only trying to isolate him on the national stage, eh! 

NorthReport

'A tough lesson': Do First Nations hold trump card on Trans Mountain debate?

Despite sparring between provinces and Ottawa, pipeline's future likely depends on court challenges

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/first-nations-kinder-morg...

NorthReport

'A tough lesson': Do First Nations hold trump card on Trans Mountain debate?

Despite sparring between provinces and Ottawa, pipeline's future likely depends on court challenges

 

 

Ta'kaiya Blaney, of the Sliammon First Nation, voices her concerns about a crude oil pipeline and tanker expansion during a gathering in Vancouver in 2013. (Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press)

Between boycotts, showdowns, shareholder action and emergency cabinet meetings, it's easy to overlook the lack of a crucial perspective in the white noise currently surrounding Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain expansion project.

But if Indigenous voices are missing from this moment's very public pipeline debate, it's not because they're not speaking.

Or because John Horgan, Rachel Notley, Justin Trudeau and Steven Kean have drowned them out.

They're still making themselves heard where it's likely to matter most: the courts.

"The First Nations issues are fundamentally on their own track," says Robert Janes, a lawyer who has practised in the area of First Nations and treaty rights for more than two decades.

'A piece that gets easily overlooked'

Janes says that even if B.C., Alberta and Canada made peace tomorrow, giving Kinder Morgan the future "clarity" company chief executive Kean has demanded — crucial legal questions remain outstanding.

"The government can't just reach out and make the Aboriginal issues go away," says Janes, a principal with Victoria-based JFK Law Corporation.

"That is undoubtedly a piece that gets easily overlooked in this whole story, which is that this is not all just up to the governments to work out."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/first-nations-kinder-morg...

NorthReport
NorthReport

Environmental justice and the law in Canada

Nathalie Chalifour and Angela Lee are scholars in the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa whose work focuses on exploring how the law can be used to advance the cause of environmental justice in the Canadian context. Scott Neigh talks with them about that work, including some of its specific relevance to climate change and to the food system, and about some of the ways that legal work and scholarly work can be mobilized in support of frontline communities impacted by environmental injustice.

Environmental justice as a framework for thinking about environmental problems has its origins in grassroots organizing by working-class and poor communities of colour in the United States since at least the 1980s. Though the specifics have varied from place to place, this organizing has refused the practice common to mainstream environmentalism of separating questions of the environment from questions of social justice, and has consistently drawn attention to the ways in which environmental harms tend to be located in places that disproportionately impact communities that are racialized and/or low-income.

As often happens, the impressive grassroots energy of these movements caused ripples of change that went far beyond the original struggles. Their work pushed institutions to begin taking up environmental justice frameworks, including (at least in imperfect and partial ways) in some legal and policy contexts, as well as in some academic contexts. And the ripples have also extended into Canada.

It is interesting that even though Canada has no shortage of environmental racism and other forms of environmental injustice, this way of approaching issues has been less common here. Certainly there are particular struggles on the ground and pockets of scholarly work that have taken it up, and it is becoming more common. But, still, it remains less widespread here than in the United States.

Nathalie Chalifour is an associate professor as well as co-director of the Centre for Environmental Law and Global Sustainability, while Angela Lee is a PhD student. The environmental justice project they talk about in this episode is organized around a number of case studies of specific areas in which an environmental justice framework is relevant.

One, led by Nathalie, focuses on environmental justice as it pertains to climate change, or climate justice. That work involves, in part, studying the legal tools that might be useful to communities that are disproportionately impacted by climate change in their efforts to better understand what is happening and to address it. This includes both developing ways that existing law and policy might be mobilized but also contributing to ongoing discussions about reforms of various sorts, including regarding the need to insert an explicit right to a healthy environment into the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Another of the case studies in the project, and the focus of Angela's work, is food justice, which is concerned with the many overlapping environmental and social justice concerns related to the food system – from sustainable agriculture, to rampant food insecurity, to food safety, to migrant farm worker organizing, and much more. This case study is happening in the context of the Canadian federal government being in the process of developing the country's first ever national food policy. There are many initiatives happening on the ground related to food justice in Canada, but much of that work is fragmented, so one element of this case study involves contributing to efforts to bring groups and activists working on different aspects of the issue together in order to build robust networks that will allow a range of voices, including grassroots voices, to shape the conversation and hopefully the policy. Angela and others involved in the project are also co-editing a book on food law in Canada, and have developed a new course for law students on the topic.

Image: Modified from an image used with permission of Angela Lee and Nathalie Chalifour.

 

http://rabble.ca/podcasts/shows/talking-radical-radio/2018/02/environmen...

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..and a big fat thank you to que!

Trudeau summons Notley, Horgan to Ottawa over Kinder Morgan as Quebec groups enter debate

quote:

Trudeau's cabinet held an emergency meeting on Tuesday to discuss the situation. Ministers left the cabinet room in a hurry that day, rushing away from reporters and saying little, National Observer reported.

News of the meeting comes as 40 non-government groups sent a letter on behalf of their Quebec members, urging Trudeau to kill the pipeline expansion project and ensure it doesn’t become part of his legacy.

The groups, including prominent environmental organizations such as Équiterre, the Association québécoise de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique, Nature Québec, and the Regroupement vigilance hydrocarbures Québec, were also fierce opponents of TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline project, which was terminated last fall.

"The support that you continue to provide to the pipeline project casts a serious cloud on your credibility as a leader in the fight against climate change," the groups told Trudeau in the letter, dated April 12.

"Know that the population of Quebec attaches great importance to provincial and municipal authority on environmental issues. Allowing Kinder Morgan to move forward while overstepping municipal regulations and the provincial jurisdiction of British Columbia over its territory is unacceptable."

The Quebec groups also said that Trudeau's actions were damaging Canada's international reputation, urging his government to respect the rights of Indigenous people affected by the pipeline.

"Knowing that your government has committed to reconciliation with Indigenous people in Canada, there can be no compromise on the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) of communities enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which your government ratified."

Martin N.

NorthReport wrote:

'A tough lesson': Do First Nations hold trump card on Trans Mountain debate?

Despite sparring between provinces and Ottawa, pipeline's future likely depends on court challenges

 

 

Ta'kaiya Blaney, of the Sliammon First Nation, voices her concerns about a crude oil pipeline and tanker expansion during a gathering in Vancouver in 2013. (Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press)

Between boycotts, showdowns, shareholder action and emergency cabinet meetings, it's easy to overlook the lack of a crucial perspective in the white noise currently surrounding Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain expansion project.

But if Indigenous voices are missing from this moment's very public pipeline debate, it's not because they're not speaking.

Or because John Horgan, Rachel Notley, Justin Trudeau and Steven Kean have drowned them out.

They're still making themselves heard where it's likely to matter most: the courts.

"The First Nations issues are fundamentally on their own track," says Robert Janes, a lawyer who has practised in the area of First Nations and treaty rights for more than two decades.

'A piece that gets easily overlooked'

Janes says that even if B.C., Alberta and Canada made peace tomorrow, giving Kinder Morgan the future "clarity" company chief executive Kean has demanded — crucial legal questions remain outstanding.

"The government can't just reach out and make the Aboriginal issues go away," says Janes, a principal with Victoria-based JFK Law Corporation.

"That is undoubtedly a piece that gets easily overlooked in this whole story, which is that this is not all just up to the governments to work out."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/first-nations-kinder-morg...

I have to agree that these indigenous voices are certainly missing:

Since federal approval was granted in late November, twelve new Aboriginal communities have affirmed their support for the proposed Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion, says Kinder Morgan Canada.

There are now 51 Aboriginal communities that have signed mutual benefit agreements with the project valued at more than $400 million.

This includes all of the First Nations whose reserves the pipeline crosses and about 80 percent of communities within proximity to the pipeline right-of-way, the company says. The 51 agreements include 10 in Alberta and 41 in B.C.

http://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2016/12/all-first-nations-crossed-trans...

 

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:

It's rather ironic that the profits from that dirty eevil oil will be the most likely source of funding for new renewables technology as the oil companies morph into renewables companies over the next decades.

The champions of the new age never define a path forward from an oil economy toward a renewable one, preferring instant gratification of their ideals over the much harder path of actually defining and costing such outcomes. But, progress is still progress and having oil revenues to fund it is preferable to a head full of wet dreams and a pocket full of lint.

Back in 2006, when Radvak's company decided to reopen an old vanadium mine in Nevada, electricity grids were the last thing on their minds.

Back then, vanadium was all about steel. That's because adding in as little as 0.15% vanadium creates an exceptionally strong steel alloy.

"Steel mills love it," says Radvak. "They take a bar of vanadium, throw it in the mix. At the end of the day they can keep the same strength of the metal, but use 30% less."...

It is a small and sometimes volatile market. Supply is dominated by China, Russia and South Africa, where the metal is extracted mostly as a useful by-product from iron ore slag and other mining processes.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27829874

There are other heavy metals extracted from bitumen. That doesn't mean we need bitumen to access them. Good for the oil companies that they are finding ways to get added value out of the bitumen that is produced. 

Not getting Transmountain won't shut down the oil sands.

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:

I have to agree that these indigenous voices are certainly missing:

Since federal approval was granted in late November, twelve new Aboriginal communities have affirmed their support for the proposed Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion, says Kinder Morgan Canada.

There are now 51 Aboriginal communities that have signed mutual benefit agreements with the project valued at more than $400 million.

This includes all of the First Nations whose reserves the pipeline crosses and about 80 percent of communities within proximity to the pipeline right-of-way, the company says. The 51 agreements include 10 in Alberta and 41 in B.C.

">http://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2016/12/all-first-nations-crossed-trans...

First Nations have separate claims. That one group accepts has no bearing on the others. The above is carefully worded. 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/oct/16/indigenou...

The pipeline crosses 518km of Secwepemc territory over which the First Nations assert Aboriginal title, a type of land rights that the supreme court of Canada has recognized were never ceded or relinquished through treaties.

The Secwepemc could not oppose the original Trans Mountain pipeline being built through their territory in 1951, because it was illegal at the time for Indigenous peoples to politically organize or hire lawyers to advocate on their behalf.

“[Kinder Morgan] either does not understand the diverse realities of Indigenous rights in Canada or they are wilfully ignoring the consequences of those rights for the project,” the report says. “Either way, it should be a major red flag for investors, lenders, and other financial backers.”

NorthReport

Indigenous groups lead protest against Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline plan

Thousands took part in anti-pipeline protest; another 200 staged rally in support of project

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/yes-and-no-protests-kinde...

Martin N.

The Secwepemc are composed of 17 separate tribes of which 3 have signed agreements with KM. Not much info out there about how many separate indigenous entities are involved in the KM project and how many not.

FN do not have a veto but their permission must be necessary. Sometimes it is difficult to determine who speaks for whom when schisms develop. Hopefully, the Court of Appeal decision answers more questions than it raises.

NorthReport

And who speaks for the province of BC? That's an easy one: Premier John Horgan 

Trudeau has stated you don't move ahead on projects like this without community agreement.  We don't have community agreement. Period!

https://ipolitics.ca/2018/04/10/bellegarde-breaks-silence-on-kinder-morgan/

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2018/04/trudeaus-kinder-morgan-deal-compromi...

Pondering

As to coal, there is no comparison. Coal doesn't leak and isn't transported through pipelines. It does not threaten the ocean. It does contribute to climate change but that isn't the primary argument against the pipeline. Leakage is. The oil industry decided a percentage of leaks was an acceptable risk. They thought they were so powerful they could buy off anyone important and bulldoze local opposition. Surprise! :) The oil industry is about as trustworthy as tobacco companies. No amount of pretty promotional videos will help. We are already going to be stuck with clean up costs all over Canada as pipelines reach end of life. 

Pages

Topic locked