Kinder Morgan Pipleline Project

317 posts / 0 new
Last post
Martin N.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Thank you for taking the time to answer for me, setting the stage, so to speak, and misrepresenting my position. Your question is in queue and will be answered as time allows.

You want to destroy my environment so frankly I don't care much for your viewpoint. It is a nuanced one just as the oil industry talking points have become more nuanced. You say you believe in science answers and when I ask you repeatedly about the biggest scientific question and you refuse to answer. Oh well you have largely been neutralized as a voice since people have been drawing out your real opinions.  You and NR can continue on talking to each other in oilspeak.

You want to destroy my country while giving the rest of the world a free pass so frankly I don't care much for your failed communist pretensions. But thank you for having "fun" with insincere 'questions' you had no intention of taking seriously. Only a closed minded ideologist will assume that simplistic solutions can solve complex issues. I am very much in favour of continued science and especially more opportunities for education in the STEM disciplines to put more resources into the solutions to global concerns and view the grievance-mongering of the usual assortment of ideologists as counter productive although the protests of activists is helpful in bringing attention to the issue.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Someone who claims to hate insults wrote:

Except, of course to the ageing hippies and failed communists who seize on pipelines to continue the fight against capitalism.

frankly I don't care much for your failed communist pretensions.

Only a closed minded ideologist will assume that simplistic solutions can solve complex issues. 

 view the grievance-mongering of the usual assortment of ideologists as counter productive 

Thanks for the productive debate asshole. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Here is the science not the we need jobs so to hell with caution lets race the rest of the planet to see who can have their oil burnt first.  If you believe the science that says 2degrees warmer by 2050 is the max we can afford and we are already at 1.8 it would appear that the tar sands by themselves puts us at 2.2.  The other thing is that we will reach that number at our current rate of consumption by 2041.

Those science based numbers make building pipelines to expand the tar sands a bad option from every angle. Spending the same amount of money on a basketful of various power and conservations options will produce a greater net economic benefit that is spread more widely across the country and will be Canada's contribution to trying to keep the planet from crisis. 

Quote:

In 2015, the hottest year on record, the temperature was about 1.8 degrees F (1 degree C) warmer than the 1951–1980 base period.

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/what-average-global-temperature-now

Quote:

Physicist Myles Allen of the University of Oxford in England and colleagues estimated that the world could afford to put one trillion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere by 2050 to have any chance of restraining global warming below 2 degrees C.

...

"The amount of CO2 locked up in Alberta tar sands is enormous," notes mechanical engineer John Abraham of the University of Saint Thomas in Minnesota, another signer of the Keystone protest letter from scientists. "If we burn all the tar sand oil, the temperature rise, just from burning that tar sand, will be half of what we've already seen"—an estimated additional nearly 0.4 degree C from Alberta alone.

...

Physicist Myles Allen of the University of Oxford in England and colleagues estimated that the world could afford to put one trillion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere by 2050 to have any chance of restraining global warming below 2 degrees C. To date, fossil fuel burning, deforestation and other actions have put nearly 570 billion metric tons of carbon in the atmosphere—and Allen estimates the trillionth metric ton of carbon will be emitted around the summer of 2041 at present rates. "Tons of carbon is fundamental," adds Hansen, who has argued that burning all available fossil fuels would result in global warming of more than 10 degrees C. "It does not matter much how fast you burn it."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tar-sands-and-keystone-xl-pip...

Martin N.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Someone who claims to hate insults wrote:

Except, of course to the ageing hippies and failed communists who seize on pipelines to continue the fight against capitalism.

frankly I don't care much for your failed communist pretensions.

Only a closed minded ideologist will assume that simplistic solutions can solve complex issues. 

 view the grievance-mongering of the usual assortment of ideologists as counter productive 

Thanks for the productive debate asshole. 

Your pants are on fire, k. I have never claimed any aversion to insults I rather enjoy a rhetorical flourish but thanks again for the dishonest attempt at controlling the narrative. Luckily, you are too lazy to do a proper job of it.......you must feel very threatened by moderate positions to resort to such underhanded manipulations.
There was no productivity on your part. Just insincere posturing. its too bad you insist on being a part of the problem rather than the solution.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

LMAOROF

Being lectured by an oil shill actually makes my day.

Martin N.

I'm sure it doesn't take much to make your day. Scientific American is interesting. "A molecule of carbon dioxide is a molecule", no matter its source.

MegB

Enough with the personal attacks everyone (and you know who you are). Martin N., your characterization of activists as "aging hippies and failed communists" is insulting, especially to those Indigenous nations who have thus far successfully stalled more than one pipeline project in the west. I'm really questioning why you are even here. This board is progressive. Your position on pipeline expansion is not.

Martin N.

Really? Will you care to read my posts to establish my position or simply assume the dishonest made-up 'fake' position I have been painted as is good enough. In the giddy rush to find an opponent to bash, my reasonable views have been twisted to confirm me as a denier. "Ageing hippies and failed communists" is factually correct in my area of the Fantasy Islands on the west coast. I did not refer to Indigenous people or their struggles at all. ......Strange that it gets called out while "asshole" is not worthy of censure. .....As an owner of oceanfront acreage in the affected area, one could reasonably presume my opinion is as valuable as that of Ontario activists.........regarding your questioning my presence here, I am a longtime committed feminist, equality of opportunity activist, federal and provincial NDP campaign worker, anti-poverty activist and anti-racist/gay rights supporter....... The "you know who you are" chaps came on here with the intention of picking a fight with a poster who dared to question not the validity of climate change but the validity of the response to it. They were hostile, combative, insincere and dishonest. If they want to drag me into the dark alley, they shouldn't whine to Mommy when they get a kicking back.

Sean in Ottawa

Martin I really do not have any trouble with you because of your opinions, except that I would want them to be open for discussion and debate. You responding by personal attacks, demeaning people. repeatedly calling people dishonest. How on earth do you think you come back from here? After saying you think people are lying when they present their views, what kind of discussion do you think you can have?

I let you have the last word and walked away but you kept going. It is time to stop.

Martin N.

Sean, here's the problem: "After saying you think people are lying when they present their views..." . The problem is that I never said that. Or other statements you attribute to me. What I did say is that "people" are hearing what they want to hear and responding to that, effectively changing my views to suit their narrative rather than responding to my views and that is dishonest. Any further reference to dishonesty is in regard to the above.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Here are some older activists in the area I live in.  The guy that is second from the left looks like an aging hippie communist I guess. 

Sean in Ottawa

Martin N. wrote:
Sean, here's the problem: "After saying you think people are lying when they present their views..." . The problem is that I never said that. Or other statements you attribute to me. What I did say is that "people" are hearing what they want to hear and responding to that, effectively changing my views to suit their narrative rather than responding to my views and that is dishonest. Any further reference to dishonesty is in regard to the above.

WTF?

My statement that you are saying people are lying comes AFTER you said they were being dishonest NOT BEFORE. Pretending otherwise is mind fucking.

If you want to explain the difference between being dishonest and lying fill your boots. I don't think people really care. Both are intentional deception and that is what you are accusing people of doing and that is what got my response. You are now trying to change the order of statements and that is not something that can be respected.

Every time you say someone is being dishonest, that means you are saying they are lying.

Sean in Ottawa

Ok Martin you do not like people interpreting your words so here are the direct quotes of you accusing people of being dishonest in this thread: 6 different people over 15 different posts where you reference people you accuse of be dishonest. After all that I said that you cannot have a productive conversation with a person who does this. You accusing others of deliberate falshoods is your favorite rhetorical device. It does not end with constructive debate.

Like I said -- disagree all you want but presume that each person believes what they are saying because in the majority of cases they do.

****

Your record in just this thread of accusing others of deception -- lying is the same thing.

 

 

Post 30:
"You also have to wonder about the sincerity of people who refuse any fact that disputes the narrative they adopt."

Post 32:
"There is a lot of truthiness around when discussing babble policy."

Post 33:
"What you should be doing is arguing the facts, not bitching about my popularity or lack thereof......"

Post 37:
"I must say that there is some truthiness in your position..."

Post 38:
"Thank you for the thoughtful critique. It is efforts like yours that give exposure to the depth of emotion, if not rationality of your goals."

Post 148:
"It is disingenuous to portray me as a 'denier' by manipulating semantics although I've always entertained the perception of myself as a Jamaican Alfred E Neumann. Don't worry, be happy.!....... What I doubt is the 'sky is falling' worst case scenarios promoted by the whackadoodles."

Post 151:
"....judgemental zealots come out of the woodwork, making great disingenuous leaps of logic "

Post 156:
"Contrary to your attempts to misrepresent my positions, I prefer to use reason and logic rather than ideological indoctrination to form a position."

Post 160:
"Finding solutions, rather than ignoring solution in order to fling merde and play games with semantics."

Post 174
"You wrote dishonest posts about my position and I have a right to address your dishonesty. "

Post 183:
"Ignoring the issue to manufacture a snivelfest"

Post 197:
"Thank you for taking the time to answer for me, setting the stage, so to speak, and misrepresenting my position."

Post 200:
"But thank you for having "fun" with insincere 'questions' you had no intention of taking seriously. Only a closed minded ideologist ..."

Post 204:
"Your pants are on fire, k. I have never claimed any aversion to insults I rather enjoy a rhetorical flourish but thanks again for the dishonest attempt at controlling the narrative."

Post 208:
"Will you care to read my posts to establish my position or simply assume the dishonest made-up 'fake' position I have been painted as is good enough. They were hostile, combative, insincere and dishonest. If they want to drag me into the dark alley, they shouldn't whine to Mommy when they get a kicking back."

My post 209
This is where I complained that you were calling people dishonest
"You responding by personal attacks, demeaning people. repeatedly calling people dishonest. How on earth do you think you come back from here? After saying you think people are lying when they present their views, what kind of discussion do you think you can have?"

Your post 210.
"Sean, here's the problem: "After saying you think people are lying when they present their views..." . The problem is that I never said that. Or other statements you attribute to me."

NorthReport
Martin N.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Ok Martin you do not like people interpreting your words so here are the direct quotes of you accusing people of being dishonest in this thread: 6 different people over 15 different posts where you reference people you accuse of be dishonest. After all that I said that you cannot have a productive conversation with a person who does this. You accusing others of deliberate falshoods is your favorite rhetorical device. It does not end with constructive debate.

Like I said -- disagree all you want but presume that each person believes what they are saying because in the majority of cases they do.

****

Your record in just this thread of accusing others of deception -- lying is the same thing.

 

 

Post 30:
"You also have to wonder about the sincerity of people who refuse any fact that disputes the narrative they adopt."

Post 32:
"There is a lot of truthiness around when discussing babble policy."

Post 33:
"What you should be doing is arguing the facts, not bitching about my popularity or lack thereof......"

Post 37:
"I must say that there is some truthiness in your position..."

Post 38:
"Thank you for the thoughtful critique. It is efforts like yours that give exposure to the depth of emotion, if not rationality of your goals."

Post 148:
"It is disingenuous to portray me as a 'denier' by manipulating semantics although I've always entertained the perception of myself as a Jamaican Alfred E Neumann. Don't worry, be happy.!....... What I doubt is the 'sky is falling' worst case scenarios promoted by the whackadoodles."

Post 151:
"....judgemental zealots come out of the woodwork, making great disingenuous leaps of logic "

Post 156:
"Contrary to your attempts to misrepresent my positions, I prefer to use reason and logic rather than ideological indoctrination to form a position."

Post 160:
"Finding solutions, rather than ignoring solution in order to fling merde and play games with semantics."

Post 174
"You wrote dishonest posts about my position and I have a right to address your dishonesty. "

Post 183:
"Ignoring the issue to manufacture a snivelfest"

Post 197:
"Thank you for taking the time to answer for me, setting the stage, so to speak, and misrepresenting my position."

Post 200:
"But thank you for having "fun" with insincere 'questions' you had no intention of taking seriously. Only a closed minded ideologist ..."

Post 204:
"Your pants are on fire, k. I have never claimed any aversion to insults I rather enjoy a rhetorical flourish but thanks again for the dishonest attempt at controlling the narrative."

Post 208:
"Will you care to read my posts to establish my position or simply assume the dishonest made-up 'fake' position I have been painted as is good enough. They were hostile, combative, insincere and dishonest. If they want to drag me into the dark alley, they shouldn't whine to Mommy when they get a kicking back."

My post 209
This is where I complained that you were calling people dishonest
"You responding by personal attacks, demeaning people. repeatedly calling people dishonest. How on earth do you think you come back from here? After saying you think people are lying when they present their views, what kind of discussion do you think you can have?"

Your post 210.
"Sean, here's the problem: "After saying you think people are lying when they present their views..." . The problem is that I never said that. Or other statements you attribute to me."


Exactly. It's really quite clever to turn my statements into accusations about "people" lying when the statements are actually about "people" intentionally misrepresenting my position to brand me a "denier". "Lying" is your word, I have not used it, preferring "dishonest". The use of "lying" as a pejorative is another clever straw man to maintain the ad hominem, attempting to keep me on the defensive. ....After reading many threads that I have not posted on, I can easily come to the conclusion that you are not as obtuse as you portray yourself here. ..... It is quite amusing to follow the off topic non sequitur machinations carefully crafted to try to place me in the "How can you come back from here" camp. .... It's been fun, Sean, but productive issues cry out for attention forcing time well wasted aside.

Martin N.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Here are some older activists in the area I live in.  The guy that is second from the left looks like an aging hippie communist I guess. 


Young crowd for sure. That guy looks like the only hippie.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

That's my buddy Jim. Some people might recognize him from his activism in BC on most if not all of the issues you fought for. Here's a better shot of someone you would dismiss as an aging hippie.

Sean in Ottawa

Martin N. wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Ok Martin you do not like people interpreting your words so here are the direct quotes of you accusing people of being dishonest in this thread: 6 different people over 15 different posts where you reference people you accuse of be dishonest. After all that I said that you cannot have a productive conversation with a person who does this. You accusing others of deliberate falshoods is your favorite rhetorical device. It does not end with constructive debate.

Like I said -- disagree all you want but presume that each person believes what they are saying because in the majority of cases they do.

****

Your record in just this thread of accusing others of deception -- lying is the same thing.

 

 

Post 30:
"You also have to wonder about the sincerity of people who refuse any fact that disputes the narrative they adopt."

Post 32:
"There is a lot of truthiness around when discussing babble policy."

Post 33:
"What you should be doing is arguing the facts, not bitching about my popularity or lack thereof......"

Post 37:
"I must say that there is some truthiness in your position..."

Post 38:
"Thank you for the thoughtful critique. It is efforts like yours that give exposure to the depth of emotion, if not rationality of your goals."

Post 148:
"It is disingenuous to portray me as a 'denier' by manipulating semantics although I've always entertained the perception of myself as a Jamaican Alfred E Neumann. Don't worry, be happy.!....... What I doubt is the 'sky is falling' worst case scenarios promoted by the whackadoodles."

Post 151:
"....judgemental zealots come out of the woodwork, making great disingenuous leaps of logic "

Post 156:
"Contrary to your attempts to misrepresent my positions, I prefer to use reason and logic rather than ideological indoctrination to form a position."

Post 160:
"Finding solutions, rather than ignoring solution in order to fling merde and play games with semantics."

Post 174
"You wrote dishonest posts about my position and I have a right to address your dishonesty. "

Post 183:
"Ignoring the issue to manufacture a snivelfest"

Post 197:
"Thank you for taking the time to answer for me, setting the stage, so to speak, and misrepresenting my position."

Post 200:
"But thank you for having "fun" with insincere 'questions' you had no intention of taking seriously. Only a closed minded ideologist ..."

Post 204:
"Your pants are on fire, k. I have never claimed any aversion to insults I rather enjoy a rhetorical flourish but thanks again for the dishonest attempt at controlling the narrative."

Post 208:
"Will you care to read my posts to establish my position or simply assume the dishonest made-up 'fake' position I have been painted as is good enough. They were hostile, combative, insincere and dishonest. If they want to drag me into the dark alley, they shouldn't whine to Mommy when they get a kicking back."

My post 209
This is where I complained that you were calling people dishonest
"You responding by personal attacks, demeaning people. repeatedly calling people dishonest. How on earth do you think you come back from here? After saying you think people are lying when they present their views, what kind of discussion do you think you can have?"

Your post 210.
"Sean, here's the problem: "After saying you think people are lying when they present their views..." . The problem is that I never said that. Or other statements you attribute to me."

Exactly. It's really quite clever to turn my statements into accusations about "people" lying when the statements are actually about "people" intentionally misrepresenting my position to brand me a "denier". "Lying" is your word, I have not used it, preferring "dishonest". The use of "lying" as a pejorative is another clever straw man to maintain the ad hominem, attempting to keep me on the defensive. ....After reading many threads that I have not posted on, I can easily come to the conclusion that you are not as obtuse as you portray yourself here. ..... It is quite amusing to follow the off topic non sequitur machinations carefully crafted to try to place me in the "How can you come back from here" camp. .... It's been fun, Sean, but productive issues cry out for attention forcing time well wasted aside.

 

"you are not as obtuse as you portray yourself here."

I do not want to continue hearing this kind of personal attack from you.

Clearly you love yourself very, very much. I think there are other ways that you could honour your love for yourself than by trying to show differences between being dishonest and lying. I suggest that you go and experiment with some more direct ways of demonstrating self-love.

ETA: please explain what the meaning of saying "Your pants are on fire, k." if you were not calling him a liar. Do you have some pictures of smoke and flames or are you wanting to teach the more obtuse people on this forum some new version of pants on fire expressions that do not involve lying?

Edzell Edzell's picture

What is "Truthiness" supposed to mean?

Sean in Ottawa

Edzell wrote:

What is "Truthiness" supposed to mean?

As I understand it there are two popular definitions:

1) to say things that are not true in a way that makes them have the air of truth -- purposeful deception.

or

2) to decieve yourself to the extent that you believe it by saying things you really want to be true

I have seen both meanings used. The more common one when accusing another person of it is the first -- saying things in a way they sound like truth when you know it is not true.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Cowichan Valley chapter hosts Leap Manifesto public forum

The Council of Canadians Cowichan Valley chapter hosted a public talk yesterday called 'Making The Leap: A Public Discussion on the Leap Manifesto'.

The outreach for the event noted, "Join us Sunday afternoon from 1:30 - 3:30 at Duncan United Church for a conversation hosted by the Council of Canadians on how we make 'The Leap' to a more just and climate resilient community and world."

Chapter activist Donna Cameron tells us, "We had three speakers, Anna Rasmussen, Howard Breen and Rob Douglas. Anna gave an overview of the Manifesto, Howard spoke of the dire need to change direction away from fossil fuels and Rob spoke of the opportunities for workers to make the change from current fossil fuel jobs to green energy jobs."

She notes that Douglas also recommended resources like Iron and Earth, an initiative of Canadian tar sands workers calling for training in renewable energy, and Blue Green Canada, an alliance between Canadian labour unions, environmental and civil society organizations to advocate for working people and the environment....

Martin N.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

That's my buddy Jim. Some people might recognize him from his activism in BC on most if not all of the issues you fought for. Here's a better shot of someone you would dismiss as an aging hippie.


That guy. The best Premier BC never had. A very smart guy vis: he ran like a hare from politics when he retired. His gain our loss. Happy retirement, ageing hippie.

Martin N.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Ok Martin you do not like people interpreting your words so here are the direct quotes of you accusing people of being dishonest in this thread: 6 different people over 15 different posts where you reference people you accuse of be dishonest. After all that I said that you cannot have a productive conversation with a person who does this. You accusing others of deliberate falshoods is your favorite rhetorical device. It does not end with constructive debate.

Like I said -- disagree all you want but presume that each person believes what they are saying because in the majority of cases they do.

****

Your record in just this thread of accusing others of deception -- lying is the same thing.

 

 

Post 30:
"You also have to wonder about the sincerity of people who refuse any fact that disputes the narrative they adopt."

Post 32:
"There is a lot of truthiness around when discussing babble policy."

Post 33:
"What you should be doing is arguing the facts, not bitching about my popularity or lack thereof......"

Post 37:
"I must say that there is some truthiness in your position..."

Post 38:
"Thank you for the thoughtful critique. It is efforts like yours that give exposure to the depth of emotion, if not rationality of your goals."

Post 148:
"It is disingenuous to portray me as a 'denier' by manipulating semantics although I've always entertained the perception of myself as a Jamaican Alfred E Neumann. Don't worry, be happy.!....... What I doubt is the 'sky is falling' worst case scenarios promoted by the whackadoodles."

Post 151:
"....judgemental zealots come out of the woodwork, making great disingenuous leaps of logic "

Post 156:
"Contrary to your attempts to misrepresent my positions, I prefer to use reason and logic rather than ideological indoctrination to form a position."

Post 160:
"Finding solutions, rather than ignoring solution in order to fling merde and play games with semantics."

Post 174
"You wrote dishonest posts about my position and I have a right to address your dishonesty. "

Post 183:
"Ignoring the issue to manufacture a snivelfest"

Post 197:
"Thank you for taking the time to answer for me, setting the stage, so to speak, and misrepresenting my position."

Post 200:
"But thank you for having "fun" with insincere 'questions' you had no intention of taking seriously. Only a closed minded ideologist ..."

Post 204:
"Your pants are on fire, k. I have never claimed any aversion to insults I rather enjoy a rhetorical flourish but thanks again for the dishonest attempt at controlling the narrative."

Post 208:
"Will you care to read my posts to establish my position or simply assume the dishonest made-up 'fake' position I have been painted as is good enough. They were hostile, combative, insincere and dishonest. If they want to drag me into the dark alley, they shouldn't whine to Mommy when they get a kicking back."

My post 209
This is where I complained that you were calling people dishonest
"You responding by personal attacks, demeaning people. repeatedly calling people dishonest. How on earth do you think you come back from here? After saying you think people are lying when they present their views, what kind of discussion do you think you can have?"

Your post 210.
"Sean, here's the problem: "After saying you think people are lying when they present their views..." . The problem is that I never said that. Or other statements you attribute to me."

Exactly. It's really quite clever to turn my statements into accusations about "people" lying when the statements are actually about "people" intentionally misrepresenting my position to brand me a "denier". "Lying" is your word, I have not used it, preferring "dishonest". The use of "lying" as a pejorative is another clever straw man to maintain the ad hominem, attempting to keep me on the defensive. ....After reading many threads that I have not posted on, I can easily come to the conclusion that you are not as obtuse as you portray yourself here. ..... It is quite amusing to follow the off topic non sequitur machinations carefully crafted to try to place me in the "How can you come back from here" camp. .... It's been fun, Sean, but productive issues cry out for attention forcing time well wasted aside.

 

"you are not as obtuse as you portray yourself here."

I do not want to continue hearing this kind of personal attack from you.

Clearly you love yourself very, very much. I think there are other ways that you could honour your love for yourself than by trying to show differences between being dishonest and lying. I suggest that you go and experiment with some more direct ways of demonstrating self-love.

ETA: please explain what the meaning of saying "Your pants are on fire, k." if you were not calling him a liar. Do you have some pictures of smoke and flames or are you wanting to teach the more obtuse people on this forum some new version of pants on fire expressions that do not involve lying?

The passive/aggressive stuff doesn't bother me but I doubt 'love is on your mind, Sean. You are really down the rabbit hole, Try to focus on the positive, or as Madonna says:
Let it go, Let it go,
You only see what your eyes want to see
How can life be what you want it to be? You're frozen
When your heart's not open
You're so consumed with how much you get
You waste your time with hate and regret. You're broken
When your heart's not open.

Sean in Ottawa

Martin N. wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 The passive/aggressive stuff doesn't bother me but I doubt 'love is on your mind, Sean. You are really down the rabbit hole, Try to focus on the positive, or as Madonna says: Let it go, Let it go, You only see what your eyes want to see How can life be what you want it to be? You're frozen When your heart's not open You're so consumed with how much you get You waste your time with hate and regret. You're broken When your heart's not open.

Sorry I do not mean to be passive about this and the only thing you seem able to hear is-- piss off asshole.

Martin N.

Best wishes. Remember what the dormouse said.

quizzical

Martin N. wrote:
Best wishes. Remember what the dormouse said.

?

"tarts are made of treacle"

Martin N.

quizzical wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
Best wishes. Remember what the dormouse said.

?

"tarts are made of treacle"


Go ask Alice

quizzical

i don't think so. could you get a link for it?

Sean in Ottawa

This is what the rodent replied:

 "If you can't be civil, you'd better finish the story for yourself."

 

http://www.open-bks.com/alice-85-86.html

Now in this case it is worth noting that the context was:

"and the Dormouse sulkily remarked, 'If you can't be civil, you'd better finish the story for yourself."

So it would seem the poster  is admitting to remarking "sulkily." I won't argue.

Martin N.
Martin N.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

This is what the rodent replied:

 "If you can't be civil, you'd better finish the story for yourself."

 

http://www.open-bks.com/alice-85-86.html

Now in this case it is worth noting that the context was:

"and the Dormouse sulkily remarked, 'If you can't be civil, you'd better finish the story for yourself."

So it would seem the poster  is admitting to remarking "sulkily." I won't argue.

. As usual, Sean, you get it backwards. Feed your head, Feed your head. Grace Slick, Jefferson Airplane.

quizzical

i'm going to a kinder morgan info session open house tomorrow night.

are there any quetions anyone would like me to ask?

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

"What did the dormouse REALLY say?   And who did he work for??"

quizzical

my question was serious.

i've got  couple of my own but thought if anyone else had any on topic questions they wanted answering...

Martin N.

quizzical wrote:

my question was serious.

i've got  couple of my own but thought if anyone else had any on topic questions they wanted answering...


Yeah, their policy on shut off valves in riparian areas. Where to find it in their technical submissions to the NEB.

quizzical

Okay wrote it down.

 

quizzical

don't know where to find it in their tech submissions but thinking on it in the last info session i went to there was talk about check valves on either side of the slant drillled pipeline going under rivers and creeks.

it's of concern here with the headwaters of the Fraser and Columbia water sheds all are. there's something like 4 or 5 Fraser crossings alone they have to do.

NorthReport

Of course fossil fuels will eventually be phased out over the next 50 years or so but the oil and gas industry appears to be on a bit of a rebound these days

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/dakota-access-pipeline-easement-g...

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

don't know where to find it in their tech submissions but thinking on it in the last info session i went to there was talk about check valves on either side of the slant drillled pipeline going under rivers and creeks.

it's of concern here with the headwaters of the Fraser and Columbia water sheds all are. there's something like 4 or 5 Fraser crossings alone they have to do.

How is a valve closed in an earthquake?

quizzical

triggered to close by loss of presssure in the line

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

When it comes to Kinder Morgan and its believe in the safety of pipelines I am reminded of another quote; “Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!"

If one believes in meaningful indigenous rights one must oppose the Kinder Morgan expansion because there is no consent from the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation who claim the unceded land that the terminal expansion will affect. Of course if you believe in any kind of local rights then the people who live around the Burrard Inlet would be also listened to. 

Centrist

kropotkin1951 wrote:
If one believes in meaningful indigenous rights one must oppose the Kinder Morgan expansion...

Not as black and white as that Krop. Lower Nicola Indian FN chief Aaron Sam is vying for the BC NDP nomination in the southern interior riding of Fraser-Nicola against former BC NDP MLA Harry Lali. BTW, BC NDP leader John Horgan has stated his preference for Aaron Sam and had asked Lali to step aside to no avail.

In any event, the existing KM pipeline runs through the Lower Nicola Band FN lands in Merritt. Today, in the Ashcroft-Cache Creek Journal, Chief Aaron Sam stated as follows:

Quote:
When asked about the proposed twinning of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, which goes past Sam’s home town of Merritt and through the Nicola Valley, he says that it is “very important” for the Interior

http://www.ash-cache-journal.com/ourtown/413081233.html#pq=Q8WvOB

So who do we listen to here?

 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Centrist wrote:

So who do we listen to here?

All of them. If you can find a place on the coast where a the rightful owners of the land will consent to building the infrastructure and take the risk then you might have an argument. However the people of the Burrard Inlet including the First Nations affected say no. It's like a woman's right to chose what to do with her own body. Indigenous people have rights that they get to chose and other people even other indigenous people don't get to override their right to deny consent to high risk industrial activity.

This is a federal seat that the Liberal's hold because they lied about Kinder Morgan and lied about electoral change. If the shiny new MP had any ethics he would resign like Sheila Copps did when her party reversed a campaign promise she had specifically run on. It would be a great by-election.

Martin N.

Given that KM already owns the terminal, tank farm and right of way plus running this concern for the last 60 years or so, what basis in law does anyone have to shut them down or overturn the federal and provincial approvals for additional capacity?

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:
Given that KM already owns the terminal, tank farm and right of way plus running this concern for the last 60 years or so, what basis in law does anyone have to shut them down or overturn the federal and provincial approvals for additional capacity?

Although challenges are working their way through the courts law is only one avenue of action. There is also civil disobedience including physically barring construction.

They own the terminal and tank farm at their current capacity.

Trudeau was right about needing social licence and communities granding permission. We live in a democracy. A critical mass of citizens is willing to physically oppose construction. In some cases the municipal level of government is against the development which really emboldens opposition.

Ultimately the government rules only with the consent of the people. Even Harper didn't dare force pipelines through. It will come down to the determination of opponents. There is a limit to the amount of physical violence or number of arrests they are willing to make subduing Canadian citizens. I'm betting on the protesters being very determined because they know their respective communities support them.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..what krop said in #243.

video

No Kindermorgan! Ceremony at Kamloops on Secwepemc territory at the proposed pipeline site. Decolonize now, determine our future, no pipelines. Land and water protectors from across Turtle island. #nopipelines #afn #ubcic #aptn #access #indigenous #decolonize #aboriginal #secwepemc #firstnations

Centrist

epaulo13 wrote:
No Kindermorgan! Ceremony at Kamloops on Secwepemc territory at the proposed pipeline site.

Again, as a reality check, OTOH:

Quote:
Kamloops First Nation and Kinder Morgan sign pipeline mutual benefit agreement

December 13, 2016 - 1:59 PM

KAMLOOPS - A mutual benefit agreement has been signed between Kinder Morgan Canada, the company behind the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, and Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation.

[img]

">http://infotel.ca/news/medialibrary/image/hd-mediaitemid37803-9865.jpg[/...

http://infotel.ca/newsitem/kamloops-first-nation-and-kinder-morgan-sign-...

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Centrist wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:
No Kindermorgan! Ceremony at Kamloops on Secwepemc territory at the proposed pipeline site.

Again, as a reality check, OTOH:

Quote:
Kamloops First Nation and Kinder Morgan sign pipeline mutual benefit agreement

..we are not talking about the same things. indigenous folk are raising issues such as colonization, violations of human and treaty rights. implementing undrip now that canada has adopted it. people settler and indigenous understand the divide and conquer games going on. these issues are front row center to the pipeline tanker issues. they needs to be addressed by even you centrist. 

Pam Palmater says Justin Trudeau forgot his promises to First Nations after he was elected prime minister

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Time to Reform Our ‘Captured’ National Energy Board, Says Expert

Marc Eliesen, the former chair of Ontario and BC Hydro, says the scandal-ridden National Energy Board has lost touch with what it means to protect the public interest and requires dramatic reforms.

Speaking Wednesday before a five-member “modernization” panel struck by the Trudeau government to review the role and mandate of the federal pipeline regulator, Eliesen recommended that the NEB fire its current board of directors and relocate its headquarters from Calgary to Ottawa.

“Unless these measures are undertaken, no amount of tinkering will restore credibility and public trust in the NEB,” Eliesen said....

...

“We want pipelines and infrastructure that’s for people and communities—not for oil companies that are going to poison our water and lead to more of the climate change destroying the planet. Our Indigenous communities need clean water pipes—not oil pipelines.”

Winona Laduke
Native American activist and executive director of the group Honor the Earth

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Martin N. wrote:

Given that KM already owns the terminal, tank farm and right of way plus running this concern for the last 60 years or so, what basis in law does anyone have to shut them down or overturn the federal and provincial approvals for additional capacity?

Transmountain has run the pipeline for 60 years and Kinder Morgan owns that company now.  When the pipeline was built to pump crude oil there were no environmental requirements and there were no aboriginal rights written into the Constitution.  I suspect that lawyers can find many points in law just from those two simple facts. The employment numbers for BC are ridiculous given the potential risk. Here is a research paper setting out the history of pipeline. Spills happen that is the fact the only question is how many and how large. Given that the statistics point to a complete randomness it is any one's guess when this will happen again.

Quote:

About the Report

0.2.

The City of Vancouver retained the author to write a report on the history of the Trans Mountain pipeline. This report includes:

1. An overview of the original purpose of the Trans Mountain Pipeline and the regulatory approvals and parliamentary oversight that existed at the time, providing a context for the development and construction of the original pipeline

2. A quantitative history of oil spills or other incidents relating to the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline

3. An overview of the evolution of pipeline regulation and reporting requirements applicable to the Trans Mountain Pipeline during its lifetime

4. An overview of the operation of the Trans Mountain pipeline

5. Analysis of the relationship between the pipeline operator and environmental concerns 

...

During its period of decline and stagnation, the total number of employees for the company decreased to fewer than 200 hundred for nearly a decade from 1977 to 1986 (Table 4). 44 The company reduced its staff from 231 in 1974 to a low of 175 people in 1978. According to annual shareholder reports, Trans Mountain did not increase its total number of employees to more than 1974 levels until 1990.

...

6.5. Regular tanker shipments of crude oil from the Westridge dock facilities on Burrard Inlet are a relatively recent phenomenon. Between 1953 and 1982, Trans Mountain only shipped crude oil by tanker in ten out of nearly thirty years. Crude oil shipments only began on a regular basis in the mid-1980s when the company started to export larger volumes of heavy crude oil from Alberta’s northern bitumen mining region.

6.6. Oil spills have been a regular occurrence on the Trans Mountain pipeline system since it began operations in 1953. Between 1961 and 2013, the company has reported 81 oil spill events to the NEB, totalling a volume of nearly 5.8 million litres. This is an annual average of 1.53 spills. Although a majority of those spills occurred at Trans Mountain pump stations and tank farms, spills from the mainline constituted more than 60% of the total volume of liquid hydrocarbon releases since 1961.

6.7. Oil spills on the Trans Mountain system reveal no identifiable pattern over the course of its more than sixty year history. Instead, oil spills along the pipeline have occurred in a random and sporadic fashion, often the result of accidents, material failures or unforeseen causes.

6.8. Trans Mountain’s public representations of the pipeline and its relationship to the natural environment have changed over time in response to public concerns about environmental hazards and key environmental disasters. Since the 1950s, the company has attempted to portray the pipeline as safe, environmentally benign, and technologically sophisticated.

http://vancouver.ca/images/web/pipeline/Sean-Kheraj-history-of-TMP.pdf

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjjhVnCfahs

Pages