no pipeline, no tankers, no problem 2

699 posts / 0 new
Last post
epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

video

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, Ta’ah Amy George, the Mayors of Burnaby and Vancouver, and MP Kennedy Stewart respond to proposed Trudeau bailout of Kinder Morgan.

eta:

..the video is about 1hr long. the 1st 1/2 hr is statements and the second is questions.

..after listening to the 1st half i believe that trudeau is in deep trouble today. if he goes ahead with canada investing in the pipeline i believe he will be in deep trouble next election as well.

eta:

..the question 1/2 is turning out to be very informative.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

delete

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..from video: around 140 first nations were consulted about the pipeline. from that the number 33 that trudeau is using were engaged with some of those being only exploratory and still other were concerned about what was happening in their territory and not because they were in favour of the pipeline.

eta:

..there will a conference and a summit next month in order to educate and mobilize more people.

..bby is going to the supreme court.

..mp kennedy stewart has a 50,000 person email list on this struggle

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:

Apparently no one likes democracy unless it is in their favour. The balkanisation of Canada is a distinct possibility if the confederation is unworkable. It is unfortunately an issue for the courts. I agree that arresting 'thousands' becomes difficult but I also think that the authorities will ensure that those arrested face consequences and that the lawbreakers, as opposed to the protesters will consist of the usual types with nothing to lose. Protesters with something to lose will not bear that risk lightly and will obey the law.

I guess we will see if Junior has the stones for the conflict to come.

Just because one judge, no matter how high level, says he thinks the charges should be higher, doesn't mean that will happen. The decision will be taken in BC. I don't believe that protesters will be be facing criminal charges for civil disobedience. 

Just because provinces reject pipelines doesn't make confederation unworkable. Alberta is having temper tantrums. I don't believe it will separate from Canada. It may admire the US but it doesn't want to be part of it. There is no benefit to Alberta from leaving confederation. 

As to Trudeau having the "stones", he will need them to tell Alberta "tough luck". 

Martin N.

"I don't believe that protesters will be be facing criminal charges for civil disobedience. "

I don't either. But I do believe that protesters will be facing criminal charges for participation in criminal acts. No doubt, some less responsible elements of the protest movement will consider dragging law abiding protesters into the fray by causing mischief among them in the hope that they will get some good footage if the authorities step in. 

But, the cynic in me suggests that the pipeline will proceed and the protesters will be their own worst enemies.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

B.C. threatens to sue Alberta as all sides in Trans Mountain dispute dig in

quote:

Tensions escalated Monday with B.C. Attorney General David Eby threatening to sue Alberta over legislation it introduced to restrict the flow of oil, gasoline and natural gas leaving that province, which could boost fuel prices in B.C.

"The immediate recourse that's available to us is to potentially sue the Alberta government for an unconstitutional piece of legislation," he said.

Eby said he can't predict gasoline prices — now at about $1.50 per litre in Metro Vancouver — but "what I can say is any concern British Columbians have that a bill that preferentially punishes B.C. from the Alberta perspective and tries to drive up gas prices would be unconstitutional and we would take action immediately to address that."

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

The new impact assessment bill doesn’t give enough time or responsibility to major project review panels. The result could be worse than what exists now.

Under the federal government’s proposed impact assessment legislation, Bill C-69, assessing the environmental, economic, social and health impacts of major projects will come under the sole authority of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (formerly the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and referred to here as “the Agency”). The Canadian Energy Regulator (CER, formerly the National Energy Board) and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), the nuclear regulator, will continue as the regulators, but not the assessors, of projects under their authority. Only the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada will have the authority to conduct environmental assessments.

quote:

Further, it seems particularly troubling that the establishment of joint review panels is precluded with respect to energy and nuclear projects (section 39.2). Joint review panels (created by all the responsible provincial, territorial and Indigenous jurisdictions to ensure that a single project requires only one assessment) have been the means by which Indigenous governing bodies have gained direct involvement in structuring the review process. It is precisely energy and nuclear projects (along with mining and hydro projects) that have been their greatest concern. Most major resource development projects occur in rural and remote areas where Indigenous peoples, and their rights and interests, may be the most adversely affected. Excluding their governments from the process is surely not consistent with the government’s stated objectives of reconciliation.

quote:

It is neither appropriate nor reasonable to expect proponents to undertake the larger-scale regional studies necessary to understand the dynamics of the project’s receiving environment, or to establish and maintain the ongoing monitoring systems that the regulators will require if the project is approved. Those are the responsibilities of government. Yet there is nothing in the legislation that actually requires government to do this work, either on a continuing basis, irrespective of specific projects, or in relation to the project itself. Further, as participation funding appears not to flow until the panel review process is under way, the potential benefits of public interventions and studies are limited.

Martin N.

Yes, the entire bill is loaded with political monkey wrenching designed to ensure failure on all levels - proponent, opponent and intervenor alike.

Mr. Dress Up is the cause of this misfortune by attempting to conflate ideology with technology to create a dog's breakfast of competing outcomes that satisfy no one.

It is readily apparent that 'pipelines' are merely the low hanging fruit in targeting the existing authority in the national order. It should also be apparent that no level of scrutiny will ever be enough for the proponents of a new world order, namely 'social license' or 'the people' or 'the majority' or whatever euphemism is used to cleverly disguise an agenda of anarchy as having popular merit.

Canada's own Prime Minister will now reap the harvest of his own misguided obtuseness. Rather than standing resolute in his authority from the beginning to undertake his duty of care, he took the easy route, blithely promising compromise and 'respect' all around when there was none to be had. Now, he faces a bleak road ahead forcing the heavy hand of authority on individuals emboldened by his timidity.

Make no mistake, inside Mr Dress Up, outwardly all hugs, humility and smarm, resides a vain individual, dangerous when provoked. Ask P. Brasseau or the lady elbowed in the house.

Trudeau has hoist himself on his own petard, either enforcing the federal will or cravenly skulking away. Let us hope that the wiser types in the PMO can contain him.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

NAFTA and climate

As NAFTA negotiations close in on an agreement in principle, a new tri-national report by leading Canadian, Mexican and American economists has found that NAFTA’s existing regulations prevent Canada from reducing almost 1500 megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. This would nix any chance Canada has of meeting its Paris Agreement commitments on climate change.

The report, NAFTA 2.0: For People or Polluters?, is published by the Council of Canadians, Sierra Club U.S. and Greenpeace Mexico. It details how the existing NAFTA binds all three countries to fossil fuel futures, and how current negotiations make the problems worse.

For example, NAFTA’s energy proportionality rules require that Canada make available for export to the U.S. the same percentage of oil and gas as it has in the past three years.

What does that mean for Canada’s climate? The report’s economic modelling shows that NAFTA’s energy proportionality rules would lock in 1488 megatonnes more greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This is double Canada’s yearly emissions and more than 12 times greater than its 2050 climate pollution target.....

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:
It is readily apparent that 'pipelines' are merely the low hanging fruit in targeting the existing authority in the national order. It should also be apparent that no level of scrutiny will ever be enough for the proponents of a new world order, namely 'social license' or 'the people' or 'the majority' or whatever euphemism is used to cleverly disguise an agenda of anarchy as having popular merit.

The authority of the government is derived from the people. 

You can blame Mr. Dress-up all you like but Harper's method didn't work either. 

The free market failed to convince BC that a pipeline is in its best interest, because it isn't. 

Pipelines are low-hanging fruit because oil companies decided maximizing profits was more important than preventing spills. Now when oil companies say there won't be any spills we wonder how they can manage to say it with a straight face. 

Opponets to the pipeline are operating from the assumption that there will definitely be spills with good reason. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-pipeline-leak/canada-oil-pipel...

The spill came seven months after another major incident in Saskatchewan, in which a Husky Energy Inc pipeline leaked 225,000 liters into a major river and cut off the drinking water supply for two cities.

It was not immediately clear how the current incident happened or which company owns the underground pipeline that leaked the oil.

McKnight said Tundra Energy Marketing Inc, which has a line adjacent to the spill, is leading cleanup efforts.

“There are a number of pipes in the area,” he told reporters in Regina. “Until we excavate it, we won’t know with 100-percent certainty which pipe.”

They don't even know which pipe it was. That was just last year. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills

They obviously think we are fools and that they are too powerful for us to thwart. Canada is still a democracy even if all our political parties are bought off or cowardly. The rule of law still does apply. Horgan is appealing to the courts not anarchists. 

All this hyperbole is way over the top. There is no constitutional crisis. Canada will not fall apart if Alberta doesn't get Transmountain twinned. 

Protecting the environment is a shared jurisdiction between provincial and federal governments. I think municipalities also have some rights to protect their territory. Decades of propaganda have been overcome by reality. Our immediate environment has a huge impact on our health and we know it. It is so significant that we are moving towards all three levels of government having power to prevent projects from going through in their territory. 

I find Canadians as a whole to be very reasonable people. If they are radical they are radically moderate. Canadians as a whole support our Charter to protect us from the tyranny of the majority and from the tyranny of government and big business if we so choose to use our power as BC is choosing to use theirs. 

Big mistake for Trudeau to precipitate a showdown between federal and provincial jurisdictions on protecting the environment. People will support every level of government being able to protect the environment. I'm guessing most people think there is too little being done to protect their environment rather than too much. 

I really don't know what Trudeau is thinking by insisting the pipeline will go through while there are still cases before the courts. The team bet on this carbon for social licence deal but they failed to understand that both sides have to consider the compromise acceptable for a deal to be done. 

It is in part the behavior of Notley and Trudeau that convinces me the pipeline can be stopped. They seem really desperate and personally invested. 

 

NorthReport

 

Norman Spector Retweeted Mike Hornbrook

Trudeau: "Governments can grant permits, but only communities can grant permission."

Norman Spector added,

Mike Hornbrook @mikehornbrook

Replying to @nspector4

Where does 'social license' appear in the Criminal Code or common law? It is a made up term designed to confer legitimacy on those who reject whatever conflicts with their ideology. In some cases that also includes what people regard as democracy.

 

https://twitter.com/nspector4/status/986374481605050368

Pondering

That's ridiculous. Social license just means the consent of the people. 

Pondering

Some people seem to think that once a government is elected they are free to do as they please until the next election. Governments are elected to do the bidding of the people. 

NorthReport

Why more people aren't talking about the Asian oil spill as big as Paris

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-january-23-2018-1.449...

NorthReport

Since 2009, the annual number of significant accidents on oil and petroleum pipelines has shot up by almost 60 percent, roughly matching the rise in U.S. crude oil production, according an analysis of federal data by The Associated Press.May 22, 2015

https://www.google.ca/search?q=pipeline+spills&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj...

NorthReport

Federal data: As oil production soars, so do pipeline leaks

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-oil-pipeline-leaks-201...

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

That's ridiculous. Social license just means the consent of the people. 

The people gave their consent when they elected Trudeau and the LPC. That's how democracy works. The people get another opportunity to consent at the next election.  The people can vent their displeasure between elections by protesting and holding events to persuade government to change course but the people can not engage in criminal acts as defined by the courts against a legally sanctioned project.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Martin N. wrote:

Pondering wrote:

That's ridiculous. Social license just means the consent of the people. 

The people gave their consent when they elected Trudeau and the LPC. That's how democracy works. The people get another opportunity to consent at the next election.  The people can vent their displeasure between elections by protesting and holding events to persuade government to change course but the people can not engage in criminal acts as defined by the courts against a legally sanctioned project.

Fortunately for Trudeau we live in a peaceful country because the level of deceit he has displayed between his campaign promises on issues like the NEB and indigenous rights and his actions would get him killed in many places. In Canada those of us who care enough to oppose this madness will merely resort to getting arrested. People will continue to get arrested because this whole project is wrong on every level of consideration.

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:

Pondering wrote:

That's ridiculous. Social license just means the consent of the people. 

The people gave their consent when they elected Trudeau and the LPC. That's how democracy works. The people get another opportunity to consent at the next election.  The people can vent their displeasure between elections by protesting and holding events to persuade government to change course but the people can not engage in criminal acts as defined by the courts against a legally sanctioned project.

Non-violent civil disobedience is within the tradition of democracy. When enough people are willing to put themselves on the line governments must re-evaluate the pros and cons of moving forward. Sometimes they decide to move ahead anyway. Sometimes not. 

Pondering

The Alberta government said Monday it might restrict shipments on the existing 300,000-barrel-per-day Trans Mountain pipeline to diluted bitumen, thus displacing the refined products and light oil it carries.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4150230/refiners-alberta-bc-refined-fuel/

Seems to me BC could retaliate by shutting down the pipeline as the bitumen is for export only. Sure it would be illegal, but so would cutting BC off of refined products. 

Pondering

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/04/16/news/just-pipeline-critics-s...

Groans were heard in the B.C. Supreme Court today, as over two dozen pipeline opponents who were arrested alongside two prominent federal MPs in Burnaby in March learned they were facing possible criminal charges for their civil disobedience.

"I signed a paper I was going to be tried by civil contempt and I thought that was okay," said one of the defendants. "Can they really jump that to criminal? Just like that?”

“If that conduct is proven to fall within the definition of criminal contempt…then I am entitled to make the decision whether that is civil or criminal contempt,” said B.C. Supreme Court Justice Kenneth Affleck, explaining that the decision to pursue criminal charges was a question of law up to him, not a decision for the police to have made.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, NDP MP Kennedy Stewart and nearly 200 others have been arrested and charged with civil contempt of court over allegations that they protested within the exclusion zone of two Trans Mountain construction sites in Burnaby, B.C., defying a court injunctionprohibiting the action.

My bet is the judge is not going to switch to criminal charges. He is trying to scare them. If he does switch to criminal charges I would guess that anything people signed thinking they were facing civil not criminal charges would be thrown out. Criminal charges against two MPs would probably be world news. I think it would increase opposition rather than frighten protesters away. 

Martin N.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Pondering wrote:

That's ridiculous. Social license just means the consent of the people. 

The people gave their consent when they elected Trudeau and the LPC. That's how democracy works. The people get another opportunity to consent at the next election.  The people can vent their displeasure between elections by protesting and holding events to persuade government to change course but the people can not engage in criminal acts as defined by the courts against a legally sanctioned project.

Fortunately for Trudeau we live in a peaceful country because the level of deceit he has displayed between his campaign promises on issues like the NEB and indigenous rights and his actions would get him killed in many places. In Canada those of us who care enough to oppose this madness will merely resort to getting arrested. People will continue to get arrested because this whole project is wrong on every level of consideration.

Unfortunately for Trudeau that same country is populated by voters who value substance over style. He has managed to offend the entire political spectrum with his duplicity.

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:
 Unfortunately for Trudeau that same country is populated by voters who value substance over style. He has managed to offend the entire political spectrum with his duplicity.

Not unfortunate, cynical. We had 10 years of Harper. We are accustomed to duplicity and Trudeau knows it. Harper didn`t get any pipelines through either so it doesn`t help the Conservatives. Pipelines are a big deal to Alberta and Saskatchewan, nowhere else. Trudeau has nothing to fear from Scheer and unless the NDP rallies around Singh he is no threat either. Trudeau can basically do as he pleases. 

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/04/16/news/just-pipeline-critics-s...

Groans were heard in the B.C. Supreme Court today, as over two dozen pipeline opponents who were arrested alongside two prominent federal MPs in Burnaby in March learned they were facing possible criminal charges for their civil disobedience.

"I signed a paper I was going to be tried by civil contempt and I thought that was okay," said one of the defendants. "Can they really jump that to criminal? Just like that?”

“If that conduct is proven to fall within the definition of criminal contempt…then I am entitled to make the decision whether that is civil or criminal contempt,” said B.C. Supreme Court Justice Kenneth Affleck, explaining that the decision to pursue criminal charges was a question of law up to him, not a decision for the police to have made.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, NDP MP Kennedy Stewart and nearly 200 others have been arrested and charged with civil contempt of court over allegations that they protested within the exclusion zone of two Trans Mountain construction sites in Burnaby, B.C., defying a court injunctionprohibiting the action.

My bet is the judge is not going to switch to criminal charges. He is trying to scare them. If he does switch to criminal charges I would guess that anything people signed thinking they were facing civil not criminal charges would be thrown out. Criminal charges against two MPs would probably be world news. I think it would increase opposition rather than frighten protesters away. 

You might want to get a legal opinion on those guesses. I have said time and again that there are consequences to breaking the law and protesters arrested can not rely on their own sense of righteousness to protect themselves from those consequences. Stay out of court - there are no good outcomes, even if you 'win', you have already lost.

I do feel sorry for the poor schnooks gulled into getting arrested. There is a huge difference between informed individuals arrested for expressing their convictions and schnooks used as 'useful idiots' by entities with agendas.

I believe the courts can tell the difference and only the most egregious perps will face criminal contempt. I do wonder about E. May's case though. Apparently the poor dear can only get press by getting drunk or arrested.

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
 Unfortunately for Trudeau that same country is populated by voters who value substance over style. He has managed to offend the entire political spectrum with his duplicity.

Not unfortunate, cynical........... Trudeau can basically do as he pleases. 

If that is the case, can we expect him to show up in big red shoes accompanied by a monkey in a red vest playing the cymbals and a bear on a unicycle? Calliope tunes?

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:

Pondering wrote:

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/04/16/news/just-pipeline-critics-s...

Groans were heard in the B.C. Supreme Court today, as over two dozen pipeline opponents who were arrested alongside two prominent federal MPs in Burnaby in March learned they were facing possible criminal charges for their civil disobedience.

"I signed a paper I was going to be tried by civil contempt and I thought that was okay," said one of the defendants. "Can they really jump that to criminal? Just like that?”

“If that conduct is proven to fall within the definition of criminal contempt…then I am entitled to make the decision whether that is civil or criminal contempt,” said B.C. Supreme Court Justice Kenneth Affleck, explaining that the decision to pursue criminal charges was a question of law up to him, not a decision for the police to have made.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, NDP MP Kennedy Stewart and nearly 200 others have been arrested and charged with civil contempt of court over allegations that they protested within the exclusion zone of two Trans Mountain construction sites in Burnaby, B.C., defying a court injunctionprohibiting the action.

My bet is the judge is not going to switch to criminal charges. He is trying to scare them. If he does switch to criminal charges I would guess that anything people signed thinking they were facing civil not criminal charges would be thrown out. Criminal charges against two MPs would probably be world news. I think it would increase opposition rather than frighten protesters away. 

You might want to get a legal opinion on those guesses. I have said time and again that there are consequences to breaking the law and protesters arrested can not rely on their own sense of righteousness to protect themselves from those consequences. Stay out of court - there are no good outcomes, even if you 'win', you have already lost.

I do feel sorry for the poor schnooks gulled into getting arrested. There is a huge difference between informed individuals arrested for expressing their convictions and schnooks used as 'useful idiots' by entities with agendas.

I believe the courts can tell the difference and only the most egregious perps will face criminal contempt. I do wonder about E. May's case though. Apparently the poor dear can only get press by getting drunk or arrested.

So far, they have not been criminally charged. They have only been threatened. Overkill against peaceful protesters with gather a whole new opposition based on civil rights. Putting great-grandmothers and elected MPs in prison for protesting peacefully would be met with huge protests. That will get the raging grannies out in full force. The leaders of the Union of BC Chiefs have all expressed willingness to be arrested and were there the day after the arrests expecting to also be arrested. Nothing happened.

Now this judge is considering upping the charges to criminal claiming that is his right. It must be true or he wouldn't have said it, but it will offend peoples sense of justice for a judge to change the charges rather than a prosecutor or police. It calls into question the impartiality of the system for a judge to do that. It is as though he has already decided they are guilty before hearing the case. I'd be asking for a jury trial. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

video

We’re live outside Canada House in London with a message for the Canadian Prime Minister

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..this piece names five indiginous cases outstanding

What’s Kinder Morgan’s real end game?

Here’s a different take on Kinder Morgan’s ultimatum and the so-called “constitutional crisis” it has sparked. I’m speculating, of course, as we all seek to understand what Kinder Morgan is really up to. But allow me to posit a minority theory:

We’re getting played!

It is entirely possible that Kinder Morgan has already decided to cut its losses and walk away from the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion (TMX)—and not for the reasons they are telling their shareholders or the public. It may well be that the May 31 deadline is merely for show, and the Texas-based corporation has already determined the project is not feasible both for economic reasons and due to profound Indigenous and popular opposition.

quote:

Layered onto the dubious economics are the growing protests, but most significantly, Indigenous opposition.

The civil disobedience phase of TMX opposition kicked into gear March 10 with a protest of about 10,000 people on Burnaby Mountain. Like the larger movement to stop the project, the protest was Indigenous-led, with the call to mobilize coming in particular from leaders of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation and the Union of BC Indian Chiefs (UBCIC).

Full disclosure: on Saturday, April 7, I joined a group of about 25 people blocking the gates of Kinder Morgan’s Burnaby site, standing behind the full executive of the UBCIC—Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, Chief Bob Chamberlin and Chief Judy Wilson. I was prepared to get arrested, but no arrests were made that day. The company never called the RCMP asking them to enforce the injunction. Little did we know that Kinder Morgan would make its surprise announcement the next day, announcing it was “suspending non-essential spending” on TMX. But also, there can be little doubt that the company did not want images of the entire UBCIC executive being arrested beamed around the world.

quote:

But Kinder Morgan has focused on the BC government as a strategic whipping boy. And political leaders federally and in Alberta, along with much of the punditry, are playing right along.

Of all the barriers facing TMX, the BC government’s legal reference case is the least consequential. Numerous Indigenous court challenges before the Federal Court of Appeal and BC Supreme Court are more likely to succeed (legal challenges by the Tsleil-Waututh, Coldwater, Upper Nicola, Stk’emlupsemc Te Secwepemc, and Squamish First Nations all remain outstanding).

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..one more quote from the above piece

quote:

Kinder Morgan’s focus on the BC government may also have an economic angle. If the corporation is indeed ready to walk, it may be hoping to launch a NAFTA Chapter 11 challenge to recoup its losses (as TransCanada was preparing to do over Keystone XL prior to Trump’s decision to overturn Obama’s rejection of that project). If Kinder Morgan does invoke Chapter 11, the matter doesn’t go to open court, but to a secret trade tribunal where the company would argue that the BC government is unfairly harassing the project. Read more about this possibility.

A related but different theory, well articulated by Ricochet’s Ethan Cox, is we are witnessing is a corporate “shakedown” of the Canadian public. Cox’s view has more weight given Trudeau and Notley’s recent admissions that they are in discussions with Kinder Morgan about offering up billions in public money to defray investor risk in the project. If Cox is right, Trudeau and Notley’s repeated insistence that “this pipeline will be built” places them (and hence all of us) in a terrible bargaining position. They are effectively saying to the corporation, “name your price.” (Is it just me, or are others plagued by the distinct feeling that the company is laughing at us?)

Martin N.

"Is it just me, or are others plagued by the distinct feeling that the company is laughing at us?"

54% of Vancouver Island and 60% of the Interior is also laughing at you, not just KM. More and more of the silent majority are making themselves known. Read any newspaper comments section: "I'm from BC and am in favour of the pipeline".

Its a recent phenomenon. Is that "social license" enough? ....thought not. Never fear, the great unwashed has had enough of anti-pipeline bullying and will make itself known

NorthReport

That's a good idea. How about actually reading the comments Martin N instead of your usual BS

 

Don’t Take the Bait: Kinder Morgan Is Playing Canada

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/04/17/Kinder-Morgan-Is-Playing-Canada/

Martin N.

The vast majority of British Columbians say the province should back down on its opposition to Kinder Morgan Canada’s planned Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project if the courts rule the province has the authority to block the pipeline, according to a new poll.

The Angus Reid Institute survey, released Wednesday, found 69 per cent of B.C. respondents said the province should cede on the issue if such a ruling on the controversial pipeline was delivered.

https://www.bnn.ca/69-of-b-c-residents-would-cede-to-the-courts-on-trans...

Looks like the "social license" crowd is bs ing about their ownership of the high ground. You can ignore it, NR, but you can bet that John Horgan is getting all goose bumply and entertaining visions of throwing the Greenweaver under the bus. Even without benefit of Mr. Dress Up's magical tickle trunk, you can bet on Horgan transforming himself into saviour of the economy and dumping the loons the second the wind changes.

You want to talk bs and getting played, NR, look no further than Horgan and his sidekick Heyman. Heyman already has the concrete galoshes on for the ritual NDP bloodletting and shunning ceremony.

NorthReport

You are quite the authority

Thanks for sharing with us how the courts are going to rule 

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:
The Angus Reid Institute survey, released Wednesday, found 69 per cent of B.C. respondents said the province should cede on the issue if such a ruling on the controversial pipeline was delivered.

It's fake. There is no margin of error because it is not a scientific poll. People signed up with Angus Reid's forum and answer surveys to be entered into draws to win prizes. 

All the propaganda being shoveled out will fail. The histronics are a good indication that there is nothing they can do to force the pipeline through faster. We live in a country that does have rule of law which cannot be overriden by politicians. At this point it isn't up to Trudeau. It's up to the courts. 

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
The Angus Reid Institute survey, released Wednesday, found 69 per cent of B.C. respondents said the province should cede on the issue if such a ruling on the controversial pipeline was delivered.

It's fake. There is no margin of error because it is not a scientific poll. People signed up with Angus Reid's forum and answer surveys to be entered into draws to win prizes. 

All the propaganda being shoveled out will fail. The histronics are a good indication that there is nothing they can do to force the pipeline through faster. We live in a country that does have rule of law which cannot be overriden by politicians. At this point it isn't up to Trudeau. It's up to the courts. 

Well, that explains it then. I do agree however that "all the propaganda being shovelled out will fail" it is already failing.

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:

Well, that explains it then. I do agree however that "all the propaganda being shovelled out will fail" it is already failing.

I disagree, but either way the courts don't decide based on propaganda and propaganda won't stop the protesters even if the courts rule in favor of pipelines. 

Then it will come down to numbers. If enough people are willing to get arrested the government will have to decide how much damage it will do to arrest whatever number of people show up. 

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Well, that explains it then. I do agree however that "all the propaganda being shovelled out will fail" it is already failing.

I disagree, but either way the courts don't decide based on propaganda and propaganda won't stop the protesters even if the courts rule in favor of pipelines. Of course. What are the courts thinking, standing in the way of righteousness with nothing but a Constitution to wave around.

Then it will come down to numbers. If enough people are willing to get arrested the government will have to decide how much damage it will do to arrest whatever number of people show up. Arrest, charge and release for lawbreakers, not protesters. If 70% of BC residents approve to pipeline, where does your 'social license' lie?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

The Myth of The Asian Market for Alberta’s Oil

For years, we’ve been told again and again (and again) that Kinder Morgan’s proposed expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline is desperately needed for producers to export oil to Asian countries and get much higher returns.

The way it’s been framed makes it seem like it’s the only thing standing between Alberta and fields of gold.

Small problem: Canadian producers already have the ability to ship their heavy oil to Asia via the existing 300,000 barrel per day Trans Mountain pipeline — but they’re not using it.

“Virtually no exports go to any markets other than the U.S.,” economist Robyn Allan told DeSmog Canada. “The entire narrative perpetrated by Prime Minister Trudeau and Alberta Premier Notley is fabricated.”

In 2017, the Port of Vancouver only shipped 600 barrels of oil to China. That’s less than a tanker load. That same year, the port shipped almost 13 million barrels of oil, or about 24 Aframax tanker loads, to the U.S.

In other words: oil tankers are being loaded in Vancouver, but instead of heading to vaunted Asian markets, they’re heading south to California.

Shipments to Asia reached their peak seven years ago when the equivalent of nine fully loaded tankers of oil left Vancouver for China. Since then, oil exports to Asia have completely dropped off.

quote:

“There’s no appetite in Asia for heavy oil,” said Eoin Finn, former partner at KPMG, in an interview with DeSmog Canada. “They don’t have the refineries to refine it. And the world is swimming in light sweet crude that’s cheaper and easier to refine, and altogether more plentiful.”

No guaranteed access to Asian markets

One challenge is that the Port of Vancouver can’t even physically fit the size of tanker required to economically compete with other shippers of oil to Asia.

The largest class ship that is allowed in Burrard Inlet is what’s known as an “Aframax.” It can only be filled to 80 per cent capacity due to depth restrictions. That means a tanker from the Port of Vancouver can only ship 550,000 barrels at a time.

Meanwhile, Very Large Crude Carriers — yes, that’s actually their name — are now embarking from Louisiana via its brand new port, carrying two million barrels each. They’re also used by many Middle Eastern producers.

Practically, this means that Trans Mountain will have a harder time competing with producers in countries that can pay far less to ship their cheaper-to-refine oil in much larger ships. Trans Mountain supporters suggest this could become quickly irrelevant if situations change: say, a war breaks out in the Middle East and takes millions of barrels per day offline.

Martin N.

Perhaps a balanced article should include such facts as the cost of transiting the Panama Canal, the extra 10 days sailing time and the costs associated with Canal delays for Gulf Coast shippers. 

This one-sided argument does nothing to further knowledge of the actual business case for Exports of crude oil from Vancouver to Asia.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..one more quote from the #689 post. safe..my ass! this is the reason though that the industry wants multiple pipelines.

quote:

TransCanada spill in South Dakota responsible for current discount

The main reason that Alberta is currently experiencing a larger differential than usual (around $25/barrel) is because TransCanada’s Keystone pipeline spilled almost 10,000 barrels of oil into a South Dakota field in November — the third incident from the pipeline since 2010.

That resulted in a two-week shutdown, and the pipeline has been running at 20 per cent reduced pressure ever since.

As Allan pointed out in a letter to the Calgary Herald, this means that around 120,000 barrels per day have been backlogged, accounting for the widening differential. You can basically see the moment when the spill happened on differential estimations, increasing from $11/barrel in November to $25/barrel in February.

It is not a lack of market access to Asia that gutted returns for oil companies — it’s a pipeline spill. The phenomena of spills squeezing pipeline capacity is something Allan has previously documented.

Gunton said that even the two reports submitted by Kinder Morgan to the National Energy Board — the first of which was striked as evidence after its author, Steven Kelly, was controversially appointed to the regulator — didn’t identify an “Asian premium.” Instead, they argued that some of the shipments out of Alberta would have to go by rail due to inadequate pipeline capacity, reducing netbacks to producers. That’s no longer true.

“That’s another big lie that there’s this big demand in Asia,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. “There’s this series of assumptions that are repeated so often that nobody questions them.”

Martin N.

USA players

USA kills Canadian Pipelines

USA Kills Canadian Pipelines
Commentary, Energy, Environment, Lee HardingApril 16, 2018
The meek will inherit the earth…if that’s okay with everybody else,” says the old joke.

When it comes to developing Canada’s energy sector, that trite joke seems all-too-true. The Northern Gateway, Energy East, and Pacific Northwest LNG Pipeline proposals have been scrapped. Scotiabank estimates that the Canadian economy forfeits $15.6 billion per year as other pipeline proposals await approval. Has this happened because Canadians organically and collectively decided the environmental impact was too great?

No. This actually happened because uber-rich American environmental foundations planned and paid for this very result.

The Trans-Mountain pipeline may be the best proof of this claim. Kinder Morgan built their first Trans-Mountain pipeline in 1953. In 2008, it added 158 km of pipeline in its Anchor Loop Project. The project that sent oil straight through Jasper National Park happened without hiccups, and even captured awards for its environmental responsibility. Nevertheless, the current Trans Mountain Expansion Project has met fierce resistance, even though most of it simply twins the existing route. Why?

“Follow the money,” as researcher Vivian Krauss did, and you’ll find out.

In 2008, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation, and the Tides Foundation sponsored the Tar Sands Campaign to curtail Alberta oil. The 17-page strategy paper by Corporate Ethics International is still available. A decade later, its success is undeniable. Its agenda was to “Stop or limit the expansion of pipelines, up-graders and refineries,” cap oil sands development, and isolate Albertan crude to Alberta has largely succeeded.

“From the very beginning,” the Tar Sands Campaign website tells us, “the campaign strategy was to land-lock the tar sands so the crude could not reach the international market where it could fetch a high price per barrel. This meant national and grassroots organizing [need] to block all proposed pipelines.”

A grassroots campaign is doomed to fail when its participants, and the public at large, realize that the whole thing is bankrolled by Americans trying to kill Canadian resource sales. That’s why the strategy paper advised secrecy: “The Coordination Center shall remain invisible to the outside and to the extent possible, staff will be ‘purchased’ from engaged organizations.”

The foundations stuck to the plan. Tides gave $36 million to more than 100 organizations in Canada, the U.S., and Europe to campaign against the oil sands development and the transportation of oil to refineries and ports. Likewise, the Hewlett Foundation has given $90 million to First Nations and environmental groups in British Columbia and the Western U.S. to oppose oil and gas development. More than 60 groups also get behind-the-scenes and “ghost-writing” support from NetChange, a private American company funded to “support and amplify” the campaign.

An essential part of the campaign strategy was “a steady drumbeat of bad press” to make the oil sands look as dirty as the “tar” label they gave it. It seems they were ready not only to smear, but to lie. Although the oil sands cover just one per cent of Alberta’s boreal forest, some environmental groups have declared it as big as Florida. Others assert that the carbon footprint in the oil sands is three or four times larger than the average unit produced in the United States. The reality is, it is only 10 to 20 per cent larger—and still better than California heavy oil.

What else did oil sands opponents do?

Krauss tells us: “Among the strategies employed by The Tar Sands Campaign are legal action, putting land and marine access off-limits in the name of protecting wildlife habitat, fomenting First Nations opposition and leveraging their constitutional rights, lobbying and celebrity endorsement.” If you ever wondered why Jane Fonda flew a fuel-powered helicopter over the oil sands or 150 First Nations allied to oppose them—wonder no more.

Strange thing, though, every First Nation whose reserve the pipeline passes through has agreed to its passage. So have 80 per cent of such communities even close to the route. Could the $400 million in agreements Kinder Morgan made with those 51 communities have had something to do with it?

Probably, and that’s a good thing. Canadians should decide what is best for Canada. The economic potential of pipeline construction and oil exports is a substantial benefit for everyone who lives here. Now that we know about the Americans forking out millions of dollars to hold us back, we should stop listening to the politicians and protesters they hire.

Read more at http://www.stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard?symbol=t.pony&postid=27916...

NorthReport

We don’t want bitumen destroying our beautiful coastline - putting our Salish Sea orcas etc in jeopardy - what’s not to understand about that?

 

Martin N.

NorthReport wrote:

We don’t want bitumen destroying our beautiful coastline - putting our Salish Sea orcas etc in jeopardy - what’s not to understand about that?

 

Of course not but there are better methods of protecting the coasts than an ideological vendetta against one economic concern while granting others a free pass.

The coastal protection strawman hides a lurking ideological attack against Canada's economic order funded by foreign interests. I note that there is no frenzy of protest against foreign oil tankers delivering crude oil to Quebec or tankers in Juan de Fuca Strait bound for Washington state refineries.

NorthReport

One step at a time 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Europe's biggest bank retreats from the oilsands

Europe's largest bank has joined the list of global investors retreating from new financial commitments in the fossil fuel industry, including investments in oil-rich Alberta.

HSBC, whose global assets total more than $2 trillion, announced Friday that as the climate change crisis deepens, it will no longer finance new coal-fired power plants (with a few targeted exceptions), Arctic drilling or new oilsands projects, including pipelines.

The announcement comes as part of strengthened "energy policy" that aims to help customers transition to a low-carbon economy in a sustainable way, while "closing relationships with those who do not meet minimum standards."

"We recognize the need to reduce emissions rapidly to achieve the target set in the 2015 Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rises to well below 2 degrees Celsius, and our responsibility to support the communities in which we operate," said Daniel Klier, HSBC's global head of sustainable finance, in a Friday morning press statement....

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Backroom deals on NAFTA and Kinder Morgan endanger the climate

On the one hand, the federal government is negotiating with Kinder Morgan, trying to find ways to bail out the company’s Trans Mountain crude oil pipeline expansion to the B.C. coast. On the other front, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland is off to Washington to renegotiate NAFTA; some say a deal is imminent.

While the two issues may seem separate, they are in fact hyper-connected. The link: NAFTA’s Chapter 11.

In the Trans Mountain negotiations, Kinder Morgan has used this as a stick, suggesting that, if the B.C. government or any government restricts its project, it could retaliate with a Chapter 11 suit. Their bluff seems to have paid off; the government is considering investing up to $2 billion in the project. This illustrates the power of Chapter 11 threats in changing public policy in a transnational oil corporation’s interest.

quote:

For example, Canadian report author Dr. Gordon Laxer, a former Council of Canadians board member and Professor Emeritus at the University of Alberta, shows that energy proportionality, a rule guaranteeing energy export levels to the U.S., prevents Canada from eliminating 1,488 megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. To put this figure in perspective, that is double Canada’s current emission level and 12 times greater than its 2050 climate pollution target.

Instead of questioning proportionality and Chapter 11 investor state dispute settlement mechanisms, Canada is arguing for non-binding and decorative language on protecting the environment. In current negotiations, there is talk of extending the proportionality clause to Mexico, which rejected it during the initial negotiations.

There is also talk of locking in Mexico’s privatization of national energy company Pemex. This would also remove a possible mechanism that Mexico could use to transition to renewables.

And while the U.S., ironically, even with Trump’s climate denial, has asked for Chapter 11 to be taken out of the agreement, Canada has been digging in its heels to protect it, despite the fact that many Canadians would probably support its elimination.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Martin N. wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

We don’t want bitumen destroying our beautiful coastline - putting our Salish Sea orcas etc in jeopardy - what’s not to understand about that?

 

Of course not but there are better methods of protecting the coasts than an ideological vendetta against one economic concern while granting others a free pass.

The coastal protection strawman hides a lurking ideological attack against Canada's economic order funded by foreign interests. I note that there is no frenzy of protest against foreign oil tankers delivering crude oil to Quebec or tankers in Juan de Fuca Strait bound for Washington state refineries.

Great logic. We already put our marine environment at risk so that means no one should complain when we up the ante to multiple times more tanker traffic with far larger tankers in Burrard Inlet. With that logic I'm surprised you are not advocating to allow lead in gasoline again and stop banning pestiocides and having regulations that restrict exhaust emissions on new cars. After all there is lead being used in other places in our society and since someplaces allow pesticides no municipalities should be allowed to ban them. And as for any kind of pollution control regulations we all know that pollution cannot be eliminated in our modern world so we should not try. Us coast protectors are not trying to ban anything we are trying to stop an expansion of a gross industry in our region.

The SCC seems to think that constitutionally provinces can control their own economies and make rules of general application even if they restrict some types of commerce like provincial cross border shopping. I am sure the lawyers for Burnaby are working up the new brief to incorporate Comeau into their arguments. It would seem that a federal board like the NEB does not have the constitutional authority to override Burnaby by-laws. If that is the case then Trans Mountain will be required to follow all of the environmental impact regulations that other developers are required to follow. Burnaby by the way has a reputation for having one of the most stringent permits department in the Lower Mainland because the counsel that keeps getting releceted decade after decade has said if you don't like our rules go build somewhere else. I am not sure how Trans Mountain gets the necesary permissions from the city after the report from its Fire Department that states it is  a fire hazard that they will be powerless to extinguish if an accident occurs and a fire starts.

What you call a vendetta against an industry looks like prudent risk assessment to anyone else. But don't take my word for it instead read what Engineers and Firefighters have to say.

"I'm hoping this document identifies consequences of the expansion of the facility, both potential and real, and what is actually at stake running the facility in its proposed state on the mountain, so close to the conservation area, so close the population. These risks need to be fully understood by the community, so they know what risks this project presents,"

For 15 years, Bowcock worked as an emergency management consultant and conducted field training for tank-fire suppression and pre-planning in the Alberta oil sands. His report will be entered as evidence in the National Energy Board's hearing on the expansion.

In a media release, Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan called the report "comprehensive and jarring.”

"It is remarkable that Kinder Morgan is even asking the citizens of Burnaby to assume such risks, but even more so that the National Energy Board is willing to consider expanding this storage site in this location - on a hillside near thousands of residents and a busy university, and adjacent to an  urban conservation area," Corrigan said.

http://www.burnabynow.com/news/fire-department-releases-damning-report-o...

“In Kinder Morgan Canada Risk Assessment Trans Mountain Expansion Project – Burnaby Terminal Project, October 1, 2013, Doug McCutcheon and Associates Consulting, wrote; “A toxic impact up to 5.2 km downwind due to SO2 created in a fire and smoke impacts as far out as 43 km”

“Kinder Morgan Canada (KMC) has stated it is expecting a time frame of toxic smoke discharge prior to possible  extinguishment of 1 – 2 days. It is expected that the 1 -2 day burn time would generate sufficient toxic smoke plume discharge to significantly affect the entire Greater Vancouver Regional District, with specifically high concentrations of exposure and respiratory health hazards to all Burnaby, Port Moody, Coquitlam, and New Westminster residents at risk with pre-existing respiratory conditions.”

Highly toxic Hydrogen Sulfide will very quickly, upon facility release, expose residential areas to conditions that are immediately dangerous to life.

Low Concentrations:
• Irritation of eyes, nose, throat and respiratory system
• Breathing difficulties in Asthmatics
Moderate Concentrations:
• Coughing, difficulty breathing, headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, staggering and excitability
High Concentrations:
• Shock, convulsions, inability to breathe, extremely rapid unconsciousness, coma and death

Kinder Morgan’s Emergency Response Limitations

“The detail not present in KMC’s answer to … (partial quotation)… within the existing emergency management programs at Kinder Morgan Tank Farm, KMC has no immediate emergency communication plans, protocols or procedures to notify the community at the first identification of hazard to the community.”

“As the authority having jurisdiction for fire protection approval within the City of Burnaby, the Burnaby Fire Department has recently been advised by KMC on May 30, 2014, that the facility no longer has the emergency response ability to extinguish fire events with internal facility resources, and that additional hydrocarbon specialized firefighting resources from regional facilities are no longer available.”

http://concernedengineers.org/danger-associated-with-a-burnaby-mountain-...

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:
If 70% of BC residents approve to pipeline, where does your 'social license' lie?

Mickey mouse polls are meaningless. The protests against are far larger than the protests for. The communities most directly affected seem to be most strongly opposed. This is a political issue not just a legal one.

When politicians are too heavy handed even if what they are doing is legal they still lose popularity. Pierre Trudeau is vilified in Alberta to this day. 

Trudeau thought he could get the consent of the grand majority by linking the pipeline to environmental protection and even insisting that we can't protect the environment without it. You can't bamboozle people who have already been burnt especially when you barely try. 

Publish the studies that prove bitumen won't end up on the ocean floor and if it does it can be cleaned up. 

The economic case for the pipeline is weak. Invest the money in more refineries in Alberta. I'm in Quebec. I'm willing to fund refineries for Alberta federally even though ideally it should stay in the ground. I would prefer to fund transition industries. The point is I care about Alberta's well-being as a province of Canada. Like any large family not all siblings are equally close but we are still family. I acknowledge familial debt to Alberta as having contributed to Canada's wealth and success as a nation. 

It doesn't give Alberta or the federal government the moral right to force a pipeline across the province that is an evironmental threat. Canada would not dare do it to Quebec and they shouldn't do it to BC either. 

Pages