Guess where Quebec gets its oil?

105 posts / 0 new
Last post
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture
Guess where Quebec gets its oil?

Interesting article.  Why is it not in the national interest to send all of the tar sands gunk to our Eastern population centres instead of Asia? Personally I would like to see the tar sands operations stopped but thats not going to happen.

The supply of oil going to Quebec refineries has undergone a dramatic transformation in less than six years.

While the province got most of its oil from overseas in 2012, the situation had flipped by 2017, with most of the supply now coming from North American producers. On top of that, Western Canada is now the Central Canadian province's top source of crude.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/11/13/news/guess-where-quebec-gets...

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Interesting article.  Why is it not in the national interest to send all of the tar sands gunk to our Eastern population centres instead of Asia? Personally I would like to see the tar sands operations stopped but thats not going to happen.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/11/13/news/guess-where-quebec-gets...

The answer is in the article you quoted:

 

The TransCanada project, backed by the oil and financial sectors but opposed by Indigenous leaders, environmentalists and mayors along the proposed route, was derailed in 2016 after National Observer published revelations that an independent federal panel reviewing the project had met privately with former Quebec premier Jean Charest, a company consultant.

It was also not clear whether TransCanada would have been able to get enough shippers to make the Energy East project economically viable. The Calgary company's proposed Keystone XL project is relying on some taxpayer support after Alberta Premier Rachel Notley's government signed a 20-year deal to ship 50,000 barrels of oil per day on the line.

From a practical perspective it is being stopped by local opposition based on threat to land and water funded by climate change activists.

Alberta has the capacity to export oil at current production levels. Alberta wants to triple production to sell as much oil as possible while demand for oil is high. One argument is as long as the world is burning oil it might as well be Alberta's. Another is that Canada only represents 1% of global emissions so until the US and the rest of the world stops burning fossil fuels there is no point in our holding back.

To the first, it is short-sighted. The world is transitioning if not fast enough. We have enough supply for current use. New infrastructure like a pipeline is intended to be in service for at least 50 years to make it economically viable. Furthermore it threatens the local environments that it passes through.

That EE would also serve Canadian refineries is a cover for the fact that 2/3rds is intended for export. The point is not to supply Canadians it's to get to tidewater.

If Alberta's wish/bet comes true they will be exporting oil at triple the rate for the next 50 years. That spells doom for the planet. I hope otherwise but if I am wrong and we fail to deal with climate change it is worth the shot. States are moving individually if not collectively against climate change.

Nor is it just about climate change. Oil is becoming as outdated as horse-power. Sure it will still be used for some applications but using oil to fuel cars and heat homes has to end, the sooner the better.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

"From a practical perspective it is being stopped by local opposition based on threat to land and water funded by climate change activists."  That only seems to work in Eastern population centers because of the obvious political problem with pissing people off in Central Canada. I still think that since the vast majority of the national population lives East of the Great Divide and selling tar sands gunk is in the national interest then it is logical to ship it to the people who make up the national interest.

If Trudeau had put Transmountain to a proper environmental review the outcome for it would be the same as EE.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Is the question do you want Saudi Oil sent on freighters spewing bunker oil with the profits used to fight immoral wars or do you want pipelines?  Or do we turn the taps off and dam a few more rivers?  All three are Earth destroying, just to different degrees.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Those are the questions and shipping it to Asia is not one of the answers.

Pogo Pogo's picture

I don't have enough knowledge to make a firm personal decision on a western pipeline.  I do note that with the result of the natural gas pipeline problems will likely be significant reduction in our usage.  This does show that supply limits can impact usage.

quizzical

i agree kropotkin. there needs to be a energy east pipeline no more Saudi oil.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

"From a practical perspective it is being stopped by local opposition based on threat to land and water funded by climate change activists."  That only seems to work in Eastern population centers because of the obvious political problem with pissing people off in Central Canada.....

If Trudeau had put Transmountain to a proper environmental review the outcome for it would be the same as EE.

EE was not stopped by environmental review or lack thereof nor was it stopped by "central Canada".  It was stopped by Quebecers. A large group of mayors, 70 or more, opposed the pipeline with strong public support. Furthermore Quebec is supporting BC based on defending provincial rights. You shouldn't resent us you should emulate us.

From a practical perspective Ottawa knows that any attempt to force a pipeline through Quebec would create a revival of the independence movement. Polls in Quebec show a strong attachment to Canada but that doesn't mean we would allow Canada to abuse our land.

It is not Quebec's fault that BC doesn't have a strong independence movement. It is not Quebec's fault that there is  somewhere around 50% support for the pipeline in BC.  I think your disposition is better suited to Quebec even though your heart is on the west coast.

I don't think EE is even economically viable. If the oil industry knew they were going belly-up in two years they would still pretend we need pipelines because the people running the industry only have jobs as long as the industry remains as big as it is now or bigger. I think Alberta could be headed for financial ruin within a couple of decades and it will be their own fault but they will blame Canada. I see a more interesting and less repetitive angle to this discussion.

People I fully accept and respect as dedicated left leaning progressives from Alberta or the region support these pipeline. I don't believe they are being hypocritical or acting against their moral code. They are relatively silenced here. 

It is a very good example of what I say about voters. It is not that economic self-interest comes first, rather that it falls in the category of survival. Most people do whatever they have to to survive in the short term over what they are told will happen in the future because the future doesn't matter unless you survive the present. That makes it easy to adopt the argument that the world is burning oil so it might as well be Alberta's. Their province is riddled with pipelines that they live with without wiping out all the wildlife in the province. They believe the rest of Canada should act in solidarity with Alberta and burn their oil rather than foreign oil. Add to that the discount on Alberta oil because it is landlocked by its own country. Russian pipelines cross multible countries more easily than a pipeline can be built through a province. From the perspective of Alberta it is outrageous that they can't get through a country they are part of. On top of that opposition is being financed by foreign money from a country that benefits if Alberta oil remains landlocked.

In more general terms. To get elected focus on the 99%. Appeal to the immediate self-interest of even 80% of the population (who believe their self-interest aligns with most people) to win elections. Most people vote pragmatically as I do. The first question is always "who will run the country best and make life easier or at least not more difficult for me?"

Look at Pogo's comments.

Is the question do you want Saudi Oil sent on freighters spewing bunker oil with the profits used to fight immoral wars or do you want pipelines?  Or do we turn the taps off and dam a few more rivers?  All three are Earth destroying, just to different degrees.

I haven't been converted but I understand the logic. To a certain extent it comes down to beliefs not facts. If you believe Alberta oil in the grand scheme of things will have little impact because people are burning oil anyway it supports making it Alberta oil as opposed to Saudi oil. If you believe as I do that transition will happen faster and the pipeline is not financially sound over the long term then it supports not having a pipeline.

It really boils down to local concerns. The primary opposition is not based on climate change it is the route of the pipeline. Opposition does not believe it can be done safely and Albertans do believe it can be done safely in which case this is a really bad case of nimbyism that leaves Alberta in the lurch.

 

quizzical

Pondering, there's already pipelines to QC. How many spills can you find as opposed to rail car incidents?

just keep on using Saudi oil and carrying on about how bad they are. hypocrisy much.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..alberta needs to get it's own house in order re: the tarsands cleanup, spills and pipeline leaks before passing judgement on others. 

quizzical

epaulo,  respectfully i don't think one is dependent on the other.

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..you can't separate the issues when your making these kinds of judgements. if you want to understand why people reject the pipeline. it's not like those people are making the decision about where the oil comes from. they are trying to protect themselves from what is exactly happening in alberta. the total disregard for environment and who pays the price for corporate greed.

..the saudi thing is important but the answer isn't what is happening in alta.

quizzical

you're in error epaulo. there's  not total disregard for the environment in AB.

yep tailings ponds are an issue. no doubt about it. something needs to be done.

but the creation of pipelines isn't an environmental issue. people who hold these erroneous positions need to go and see for themselves.

again 2 separate things.

and sure you can when making judgements.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..even reports coming from alta regulators speak to the leaky/spilling pipelines in alta. spills that can go on for weeks before they are addressed. i know this because i posted some of those reports here on babble. in the alta thread and possibly the pipeline thread.

..and there is disregard for the environment. i'm sure notley will disagree with me and has some legislation the ndp has passed to bolster her position. i see this as cover in order to facilitate the plunder of alta by the oil industry. the tailing ponds alone are spewing toxic shit into the air as well as seeping into the ground water and then into the athabasca.   

quizzical

epaulo the oil sands themselves have been leaking toxic shit into the Athabaska for millennia. is it worse now? 

every new, or hot line dig up, pipeline has environmentalists all over the sites. are you saying they're not doing their jobs? because my seeing them in action says otherwise.

not saying things are perfect but they're far from how some are portraying things in AB and in respect to pipelines and spills.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering I understand very well that Quebec voters have more power than BC voters.  You didn't need multiple paragraphs to make that point. The question comes down to the tar sands itself.  When Saint Jack flew over the tar sands tailing fields, that are back in the news as an unfunded liability, I was disappointed that he was merely calling for a moratorium on new development but I thought it was better than nothing.  The response from the oiligarchy was an massive increase n production. 

If the NDP was consistent it would be calling for a winding down of the tar sands. But then that leaves the real problem of where do the majority of Canadians get their petrol from. The oil industry in the last 15 years have shut down most of the refineries that provided fuel to BC drivers and now the majority of oil is refined into gas in Washington State and shipped north. If you don't have a pipeline to Eastern Canada that is direct the oiligarchy will be happy to pipe bitumen to the Gulf Coast refineries that are being equipped with docking facilities to provide product to places like Canada's eastern seaboard.

The point being that in no scenario is a pipeline to export bitumen to Asia a matter of national interest.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

quizzical wrote:

epaulo the oil sands themselves have been leaking toxic shit into the Athabaska for millennia. is it worse now? 

every new, or hot line dig up, pipeline has environmentalists all over the sites. are you saying they're not doing their jobs? because my seeing them in action says otherwise.

not saying things are perfect but they're far from how some are portraying things in AB and in respect to pipelines and spills.

..of course it's worse now because the ponds have been/are expanding. 

..quiz..i post things all the time in the alta thread re the tarsands. very recent stuff. very serious stuff. few on this board, including you, have responded. that's where the discussion needs to take place. your question about environmentalists not doing their jobs doesn't address anything.  

..there, imho, is plenty of evidence that would make people in que not want to take the risk.

quizzical

epaulo i don't respond because i disagree with much of it and cant be bothered to say "not so" all the time.

i live on the transmountain and have on and off for 25 years. my worst fear is the train cars going by every 20 mins. it's even more frightening now they're using cement ties and laying in huge chunks. no consideration of finer curve angles. you can literally see the tracks rising up and down when a train is going by and your sitting at a crossing. videoed it even. they can't keep one crossing's pavement in place because the ties bounce it right out where they're situated.

no fear of a spill from the pipeline. lives are more important.

 had to draw up an evacuation plan for an organization. didn't have to factor in a spill but did for a train derailment. it really hit home about what is more valuable.  lives or a pipeline break. choice is simple especially when you factor in how many train spills there are. 

sure i would really want it refined and not dilbit in the pipes but no one's pressuring for one. just shut it down and import from Saudi Arabia. 

don't believe for one min we should be importing and shutting our production down. think it's foolish thinking even. 

i believe in harm reduction. clean up tailing ponds quicker,  pipeline a finished product and no oil imports. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..yet you try to address it here, in this thread.

..the reality is no one in the alta oil industry want a refinery. they want a pipeline to ship the dilbit elsewhere..out of the country. not for the domestic market. this includes notley.

..what was the point of the ndp taking the position to support the industry? the party is out come election time. same with the reforms they introduced. they should have taken a different path. one that worked to end the status quo. maybe they still would have been booted out of office but they would have went with their heads held high.

..there is plenty of problems regarding trains. it's a myth that pipelines are the answer to that. the problems stem from allowing the oil industry to call the shots. the problems stem from governments that support the industry to the detriment of people and environment.

quizzical

i agree with your last paragraph except for the myth part. i live a pipeline reality.

don't be too sure about the UPC getting in.

i think Rachel should hold her head high. i see the difference in AB over the last 3 years. just because she is not pure enough for some doesn't mean she should be ashamed.

she is dealing with the reality of AB where union pipefitters are stating she needs to be "kicked in the cunt" and it's  a more minor threat against her. had she made huge sweeping changes she might be dead now.

i really like you and your posts, read them always, but i find it's easy for you to live afar and pontificate from a position where your getting your info 2nd or 3rd hand.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..questioning the validity of my input is not addressing the issues i raise. the pipeline reality is also no nothern gateway, no energy east and so far no kinder morgan. even keystone is in question. this says it's just not me pontificating but laying out positions taken..with a bias towards opposed.  

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering I understand very well that Quebec voters have more power than BC voters.  You didn't need multiple paragraphs to make that point. The question comes down to the tar sands itself.  When Saint Jack flew over the tar sands tailing fields, that are back in the news as an unfunded liability, I was disappointed that he was merely calling for a moratorium on new development but I thought it was better than nothing.  The response from the oiligarchy was an massive increase n production.

Quebec voters do not have more power they just choose to use the power they have. If BC does the same they will have the same result. Your problem isn't "central Canada" or Quebec your problem is your fellow BC citizens.

quizzical

epaulo13 wrote:

..questioning the validity of my input is not addressing the issues i raise. the pipeline reality is also no nothern gateway, no energy east and so far no kinder morgan. even keystone is in question. this says it's just not me pontificating but laying out positions taken..with a bias towards opposed.  

Northern Gateway is a go. Transmountain continues to flow relatively spill free.

as you said the split is 50/50 and i would say the same % is across the board for all. but even within the 50% the positions are nuanced not cut and dry for support nd against.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..northern gateway is not a go. for it to be a go it would need to address the courts decision to shut it down..which is similar to km ruling. the addition with km decision is the salish sea. and that we are talking about the expansion.

quizzical

pardon me another LNG project then

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/kitimat-lng-canada-1.4845831

it's no longer km and never was to us. it's Transmountain. 

don't want to bicker with you. i just see it differently because of my lived experiences. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..i have no problem leaving it here for now..quiz. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

Quebec voters do not have more power they just choose to use the power they have.

The voice of Canadian privilege.  Since WWII we have had eleven different PM's, eight of then have been from Quebec. Of course it is your superior qualities as citizens that gives your voters that clout.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

Pondering, there's already pipelines to QC. How many spills can you find as opposed to rail car incidents?

just keep on using Saudi oil and carrying on about how bad they are. hypocrisy much.

If you read the first post you would see that Quebec is no longer getting much if any oil from Saudi Arabia but even if we were it makes no difference.  I don't support using other oil I support rapid transition which will make oil infrastructure obsolete before it can be paid off. I support closing our oil refineries and our pipeline with them as soon as possible. If you decide you are going to stop driving in a year you don't go out and buy a new car. Given that we must use less and less oil it doesn't make sense to build more infrastructure particularly when it carries risks.

That pipelines are safer than rail is immaterial because much more oil is transported through a pipeline than will ever be put on rail cars. Rail cars are also carrying other more dangerous products.

New oil infrastructure will influence people to increase their dependence on oil instead of reducing it. There are still some homes in Quebec that heat with oil or have a hybrid system that switches to oil when it is very cold. We also need to reduce the use of natural gas.

When we reach the point at which fossil fuels cost more than other forms of energy the transition will snowball. It isn't going to be a slow steady transition from oil to renewables like what we are experiencing now. We will suddenly be left with unneeded oil infrastructure. Refineries will keep going but produce less and less for the domestic market.

Quiz you focus heavily on production for domestic use but that is not the purpose of the pipelines. Producers have made it very clear that the goal is reaching tidewater to ship to Asian and European markets.

They will not ship oil for export markets by rail to the east coast so it doesn't matter that pipelines are safer than rail. They ship excess by rail because they have no choice but they don't increase production based on rail.

What it all boils down to is will we or won't we have a period of rapid transition to renewables that only takes a decade or two. We are almost in the next decade so 2 decades brings us to 2040. I'm hoping the tipping point comes by 2030. If it does no new pipelines will be able to pay for themselves. At that point, hopefully, burning oil for locamotion will be limited to special applications like air travel.

It's not just about climate change either. I'm tired of inhaling car exhaust when I walk along the street. When I approach Montreal by car it is emeshed in a yellow haze. Always. I went to get my hair cut to day and we talking about how it looks like spring outside. Black snow along the sidewalks. What a treat it would be if the snow stayed white or at least a pale beige in the city.

It is quite possible the transition won't happen and the world will continue burning oil at rates that the oil sands wouldn't have made a dent in. But if that is the case we are doomed. Whether or not a pipeline gets through we be of no consequence because the ravages of climate change will destroy the economy and have us worrying about our survival and climate change refugees not the latest phones.

I would rather throw my chances in with those who are trying to stop the madness of trashing the only planet we have to live on. It's insane. We are like lemmings. If any war is justified it is one against countries that continue burning fossil fuels knowing it is planetary suicide.

We are working towards critical mass and when we reach it the transition will be fast because renewables will be cheaper than burnig fossil fuels. It already is if you count damage to health, infrastructure, and the environment.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/air-polluti...

Right wingers threaten economic disaster if we don't continue burning fossil fuels. They never ask what people would pay to breath clean air in the middle of the city and escape the health effects and general filth of smog while still living in the city. I love the sidewalk sales that happen on Mont Royal, St Laurent and St Catherine street. It is such a joy to walk around casually not worrying about getting hit or inhaling bus exhaust.

We must dramatically reduce the burning of fossil fuels as quickly as possible which will inevidably destroy the market for oil. Putting in a new pipeline is betting that we will fail.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Quebec voters do not have more power they just choose to use the power they have.

The voice of Canadian privilege.  Since WWII we have had eleven different PM's, eight of then have been from Quebec. Of course it is your superior qualities as citizens that gives your voters that clout.

We don't single-handedly elect Quebec Prime Ministers. The majority of Canadians live outside Quebec. Quebec hasn't always supported the elected PM either even if he did come from Quebec.

I'm not claiming we have superior qualities. I'm saying Quebec is not standing in the way of BC threatening Canada with separation and Quebec is supporting BCs court challenge based on the right of provinces to protect the environment.

So far BC is winning in its fight against Transmountain just as Quebec won its fight against Energy East.

Ultimately it comes down to strength of opposition. BC, or the people of BC, have just as much power as Quebec does to halt a pipeline. It is not the fault of Quebec if BC residents aren't willing to go as far as Quebecers do, but that is an if. We don't know the answer yet. So far TM is not being built no matter how much they insist that it is a fait acompli while trying to make it so. I believe construction has stopped on the terminal not just the pipeline. They tried and failed to create "facts on the ground". Declaring it in Canada's best interests does not reduce provincial rights protected under the constitution. The federal goverment is not above the provincial governments in our system. That we are a federation matters. Quebec's interest is in protecting provincial rights. At question is the right of a province to protect its physical territory from pollutants or the threat of pollutants.

Because the environment wasn't such an issue when our Constitution was written up it doesn't address the topic directly. So far the courts have treated it as a shared jurisdiction. I don't think there has ever been a clash before. Normally any action respects the regulations of all levels of government from municipal to federal.

What this is coming down to is the right of a province to have stricter regulations protecting its physical territory than the federal government has. Did provinces sign away that right when they signed the Constitution? The federal government says it is so but that doesn't make it true.

Usually the courts favor respecting the regulations of all levels of government. That cross-provincial pipelines are a federal jurisdiction doesn't necessarily mean they have the right to force a pipeline on a province overriding the right the province has to protect the environment.

Lets assume they do have that legal right. Then it comes down to the will of the people. If they feel strongly enough they can block it physically and make the political cost too high.

Trudeau is considering giving the pipeline to First Nations, sort of...

https://torontosun.com/news/national/liberals-considering-giving-trans-m...

The federal government is actively considering gifting the Trans Mountain pipeline to First Nations groups, Postmedia has heard from multiple sources.

“The possibility of giving the pipeline to First Nations (or at least a share of Trans Mountain) has come up at cabinet level,” a senior Liberal government source told Postmedia on Tuesday.

How the deal would unfold is that a part or all of the pipeline would be placed in a trust that would then use the proceeds to fund First Nations projects.

That shows a certain desperation. There would be no need to contemplate something like that if they didn't fear that they will lose either through the courts or by opposition.

voice of the damned

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Quebec voters do not have more power they just choose to use the power they have.

The voice of Canadian privilege.  Since WWII we have had eleven different PM's, eight of then have been from Quebec. Of course it is your superior qualities as citizens that gives your voters that clout.

No, it was just the willingness of Canadians to vote for parties led by Quebeckers. George Drew, Major Coldwell, Tommy Douglas, Robert Stanfield, Ed Broadbent, John Turner, Audrey McLaughlin, Kim Campbell, Stockwell Day etc all led major parties fielding enough candidates to form a majority-government, but Canadians just said "Nah, we'll go with someone else", which more often than not happened to be a Quebecker. The only "privilege" at play was the privilege of Canadians to vote for whomever they wanted.

And, for what it's worth, I have never voted for a party led by someone from Quebec.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering are you really saying the whole Quebec as a nation willing to separate was just a blackmailing technique to gain political leverage in the federation. Your analysis would probably go over well in Brockville because that is what anti-French bigots have been saying for decades.

The people of Quebec do vote for the hometown boy whether it is a Mulroney or a Trudeau, at least for a few election cycles. Even Jack in the NDP's massive breakthrough was a bit of a hometown boy given his family history. I have this believe that many people in Quebec are like my Acadian relatives and they just naturally cheer for the gutsy underdog with the big heart so I think that played a big roll in Jack's and the NDP's success.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

And, for what it's worth, I have never voted for a party led by someone from Quebec.

So are you  a non-voter, a vote switcher or young enough to not have voted prior to Harper?

WWWTT

quizzical wrote:

she is dealing with the reality of AB where union pipefitters are stating she needs to be "kicked in the cunt" and it's  a more minor threat against her. had she made huge sweeping changes she might be dead now.

Just for the record, I believe there are UA members out of UA 488?that would say such stuff. 

These brothers and sisters are somewhat fucked upstairs to say this kind of stuff 

quizzical

the Soldiers of Oden men giving unions a bad name.

 

Sean in Ottawa

There are a number of differnt issues here and I think they tend to get muddled sometimes so sorting them may help.

I think most of us here are concerned about the environment, There is a lot more concentration on supply than consumption. However, if you want to do something positive, it is consumption rather than supply that is the greater problem. If we push to constrain supply only, there is already enough to bring the world to a distater without including any Canadian supply. Constraining Canadian supply does not constrain consumption unless there is a shortage which there is not -- it is controlled by a cartel that will adjust to keep the supply fairly even. If you want to address consumption you have to look at conservation, technologies to use less or use alternate sources. This debate about Alberta Oil does not achieve anything

Another issue is the land transportation. This is problematic regardless of truck, train or pipeline. Pipeline seems to have the edge in safety over the other two in similar volumes.

The sea transportation is especially dangerous.

Another issue is the exporting of raw rather than refined material.

Many have made the strong argument that consuming our own reduces sea transport, dependence and support of regimes that are contrary to our values.

Also important are resource sharing with indigenous peoples and their permission.

Another issue is what is being asked of Alberta -- if you ask them to forego a resource what are you offering? Is it really as fair as some presume to just ask them to do without? A greener economy is a national project: there is no reason not to provide a national investment in Alberta of replacement value in economic terms. The dislocation of not doing so costs the national economy as well. There is also the question of having a discussion about what exactly we are doing. Importing Saudi Oil to make up for cutbacks, or prevention of Alberta oil sales merits a demand for the position to be justified.

At this point we lack a real national strategy to replace fossil fuels at the consumption end. Taxing people without replacement would have some effect but replacement is more effective.

Today we heard more about automaker cutbacks and job loss. Where was the strategy years ago to move to build greener cars in Canada? Where is it now? Waiting for the population to move on their own is waiting for increased environmental degradation - together with the job loss.

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

the Soldiers of Oden men giving unions a bad name.

 

What association does a union have with them?

I tried to find the story and could not.

voice of the damned

kropotkin1951 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

And, for what it's worth, I have never voted for a party led by someone from Quebec.

So are you  a non-voter, a vote switcher or young enough to not have voted prior to Harper?

I stopped voting after I left Canada, in 2001. Prior to that, I believe all my federal votes were NDP.

 

voice of the damned

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

quizzical wrote:

 

the Soldiers of Oden men giving unions a bad name.

 

What association does a union have with them?

I tried to find the story and could not.

So, Valhalla's an open-shop? So much for Scandinavian social democracy.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Pondering are you really saying the whole Quebec as a nation willing to separate was just a blackmailing technique to gain political leverage in the federation. Your analysis would probably go over well in Brockville because that is what anti-French bigots have been saying for decades.  

I don't see where you would get that from what I said.  It isn't a tactic or a bluff. Quebec would separate before allowing Canada to force a pipeline through the province. It depends on what the people of a province are willing to do to keep a pipeline out. We don't yet know how far BCers are willing to go. Hopefully the courts will stop the pipeline so we won't have to find out.

If the people of BC are as determined as the people of Quebec they will be equally successful in stopping the pipeline.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
 The people of Quebec do vote for the hometown boy whether it is a Mulroney or a Trudeau, at least for a few election cycles. Even Jack in the NDP's massive breakthrough was a bit of a hometown boy given his family history. I have this believe that many people in Quebec are like my Acadian relatives and they just naturally cheer for the gutsy underdog with the big heart so I think that played a big roll in Jack's and the NDP's success. 

Harper wasn't from Quebec. How did he manage to stay in power for 10 years? I didn't realize that BC voted majority NDP federally and it was only the rest of Canada keeping the NDP out.

Sorry, no, Quebec doesn't go for the gutsy underdog. Quebec votes for whomever will most benefit Quebec.

Transmountain has nothing to do with Quebec yet Quebec is supporting BC's court case agains the federal government.  BC voters came within a hairs breath of giving the Liberals another majority in BC. That has nothing to do with Ottawa or Quebec.

50% of BCers support the pipeline. Why shouldn't Canadians support that half of BC?

The truth is that BC chooses conservative governments both locally and federally. There is no guarantee that they will elect another NDP government next election.

If BC citizens aren't willing to go as far as Quebec citizens to stop a pipeline that is not the fault of Quebecers.

Your problem is that the people of BC do not agree with your politics anymore than the rest of Canada agrees with the positions taken by most people on this board. I'm not blaming BC for Legault. Don't blame Quebec for BCs choices.

 

quizzical

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

quizzical wrote:

the Soldiers of Oden men giving unions a bad name.

 

What association does a union have with them?

I tried to find the story and could not.

it's not making the news. at least not yet. know people in the union and witnessed it.

AB news isn't going to cover it. they're too busy reporting against her. and they don't want Kenney getting more bad press about who is supporters are.7

Sean in Ottawa

voice of the damned wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

quizzical wrote:

 

the Soldiers of Oden men giving unions a bad name.

 

What association does a union have with them?

I tried to find the story and could not.

So, Valhalla's an open-shop? So much for Scandinavian social democracy.

Can you source the story?

As for this group -- it is not new and has spread among racists. Most associated are not from Scandanavia. Furthermore it was a fringe group there and a fringe does not negate a social democracy. Social democracy is about pluralities and majorities not fringe elements. Unfortunately these exist worldwide.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

quizzical wrote:

the Soldiers of Oden men giving unions a bad name.

 

What association does a union have with them?

I tried to find the story and could not.

it's not making the news. at least not yet. know people in the union and witnessed it.

AB news isn't going to cover it. they're too busy reporting against her. and they don't want Kenney getting more bad press about who is supporters are.7

sorry if you have the time -- can you explain what happened? Are these union members who are also Soldiers of Oden or how are they associated? Is there any indication of leadership being invovled? Why would this group make the union look bad? I simply do not understand the comments as I have not seen the story.

Thanks for your help if you are able to shed more light.

quizzical

what light to shed?

the union leadership it looks like doesn't give a fk if there's racist soldiers of oden in it's ranks or members advocating violence. free speech and all you know.

again the story isn't in the public realm though David Climenhaga from here knows about it.

 

voice of the damned

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

quizzical wrote:

 

the Soldiers of Oden men giving unions a bad name.

 

What association does a union have with them?

I tried to find the story and could not.

So, Valhalla's an open-shop? So much for Scandinavian social democracy.

Can you source the story?

As for this group -- it is not new and has spread among racists. Most associated are not from Scandanavia. Furthermore it was a fringe group there and a fringe does not negate a social democracy. Social democracy is about pluralities and majorities not fringe elements. Unfortunately these exist worldwide.

That was a joke. Odin lives in Valhalla, which is thought to be in Scandinavia, so if the Soldiers Of Odin aren't unionized...

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Another issue is what is being asked of Alberta -- if you ask them to forego a resource what are you offering? Is it really as fair as some presume to just ask them to do without? 

We aren't asking Alberta for anything. The primary opposition stopping the pipeline is focused on local threat to the land and water. Alberta does not have some sort of right to pollute the other provinces. There is no serious opposition to Keystone from the Canadian side of the border. The majority of Canadians are fine with Alberta tripling production if they can get it out without damaging the other provinces.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
  A greener economy is a national project: there is no reason not to provide a national investment in Alberta of replacement value in economic terms.

Realistically there is nothing Canada could give to Alberta that would replace the wealth generated by tripling oil production and it is not our responsibility to do so. If the oil industry had been more responsible opponents would have a much more difficult time stopping pipelines. Alberta is not being victimized. The other provinces have a right to protect their land and people. Being part of the same country should not mean losing the right to self-protection. BC is not using the whales as an excuse. The whales really are threatened by increased traffic and that really is a threat to BC. Indigenous opposition is rooted in the threat to the land. If they thought it was safe activists wouldn't be able to drum up enough opposition. The money would win. The strength of opposition is firmly rooted in a desire to protect the immediate land and water they depend on for survival. So much of their land has been polluted by industry that they don't believe the promises of safety.

Canada has done nothing to prevent Alberta from polluting its own territory with as many pipelines and tailing ponds its heart desire. That does not extend to polluting the rest of the country.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Importing Saudi Oil to make up for cutbacks, or prevention of Alberta oil sales merits a demand for the position to be justified. 

No one is preventing Alberta oil sales and there have been no cutbacks. Quebec is using more Alberta oil and so little Saudi oil that they don't register as a percentage on the chart that opened this thread. The North American oil industry is integrated in that we sell to their refineries and they sell to ours. This is not by design. It is dictated by market forces and common sense. Canada's population forms a long thin line along the US border. That makes it much cheaper to move product north and south rather than east and west. Quebec hydro power is of no use to BC either due to transportation constraints.

I'm willing to help Alberta transition but I don't believe Alberta is owed a replacement for their oil industry as big as the oil industry itself.  Alberta chose free market ideology, sell as much as you can as fast as you can and let private industry take most of the profits. Oil was always a finite resource and Alberta went through enough boom and bust cycles to know better. They chose to rely on exporting raw bitumen rather than refined products.

Alberta has ignored all warnings and bet on tripling output and forcing pipelines through. So has the federal government for that matter. Alberta has known for a long time that people don't trust pipelines and don't trust the industry to monitor them. Those concerns were ignored. The oil industry should have asked for outside inspectors. The NEB  should not have been stacked with pro-industry executives.

Someone lobbied to reduce the number of engineers on trains carrying oil and that was a factor in the Lac Magantic disaster. Now they are using the danger of train transport to justify pipelines.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/06/12/news/leaked-letter-reveals-k...

The letter from the federal Fisheries and Oceans Department (DFO) notes that the company also went months without filing mandatory monitoring reports to the government and First Nations before federal officials noticed the Texas company was breaking the rules.

The department sent the warning to an executive at the company's Canadian unit, Trans Mountain, in a letter dated June 6, 2018 and obtained by National Observer.

They can't even be bothered to follow safety regulations on Transmountain while they wait for full approval. This is them putting their best foot forward. The arrogance is jaw-dropping.

I really do not understand why anyone thinks we should believe what the oil industry says and trust them.

I frequently read the claim that there have been no spills along transmountain.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/05/30/opinion/kai-nagata-cbc-prete...

Had Mr. Bratt, or his fact-checkers at the CBC, bothered to look up the “spill history” page on the pipeline company’s own website, they would have found 69 oil spills reported to the federal government since 1961, plus more than a dozen leaks of natural gas, jet fuel, diesel, solvents and contaminated water.

Since Texas-based Kinder Morgan bought the line in 2005, there have been 13 oil spills totalling 5,628 barrels of crude. CBC even reported on some of them, including the 2007 gusher that coated houses in Burnaby’s Westridge neighbourhood before draining into Burrard Inlet.

This sums it up nicely:

f you live in a fantasy world where pipelines never spill, then the concerns of First Nations and British Columbians along the route must sound silly indeed. If you believe Justin Trudeau waved a magic wand and fixed the National Energy Board, then its decisions must seem eminently credible.

By the same token, if pipelines don’t load their cargo of toxic, sinking bitumen onto oil tankers, which must then sail the B.C. coast on their way to China — well, then the whole enterprise of crude oil export becomes far more palatable.

Over the weekend, Times Colonist columnist Les Leyne wrote of the NEB decision, “It’s when the oil gets to a refinery in Burnaby that all the worries and the arguments start.” But there’s no refinery involved. The whole point of these oil tanker proposals is to send raw, unrefined heavy crude to refineries overseas. Meanwhile, we import light crude and gasoline.

We don't owe it to Alberta to facilitate tripling their industry at our expense. I don't want Keystone going through but the provinces and Canada as a whole are not trying to stop it. In fact the provinces, through the federal government, have been paying for promotion of Keystone XL on Alberta's behalf.

It is Alberta's fault that opposition to pipelines is so strong. If the oil industry was not so irresponsible activists wouldn't be able to stop the pipelines. Alberta bowed down to the oil companies based on free market ideology that they still support. There is no huge movement in Alberta demanding refineries. They are willing to let market forces make that decision.

It appears the oil companies can't pay a high enough price to obtain passage through some provinces. The oil companies drove up the price themselves. The free market dictates that if you can't afford the price it doesn't happen. Yes I am saying that passage could be bought even through Quebec.

 

quizzical

"69 spills since 1961."

you arm chair environmentalists are really something.

claim pipelines aren't more environmentally safe than railroads and quote 69 spills since 1961 as if it's some big amount.

did you bother to look up train derailments? nope i know you didn't or you wouldn't be thinking 69 spills or leaks is significant. there has been 1000's of train derailments since 1961.

like really, targeting AB and pipelines is way more easy than looking into the environmental damages because of 1000's of derailments. too much work. pipelines are low hanging fruit so people can say they care and appease themselves imv.

pipelines are safer than rail transport.

people in AB do talk about refineries but being wrongly attacked, by people who could be allies, leaves no room for a nation wide action.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pipelines are safer than trains, so what? We actually only have one planet and the idea that Alberta needs to drain the tar sands is absurd unless one is a climate change denier.  If TM did not want to have its terminus in the heart of the Lower Mainland instead of Delta Port then there would be much less opposition on the Coast but the oiligarchy wants what it wants and nothing will dissuade them except maybe First Nations litigation.

Our gas companies have shut down most of BC's refining capability. Those are jobs that Albertan politicians didn't complain about losing.  Instead of a pipeline that was designed to bring Alberta crude to refineries in the Interior and on the Coast to supply our provincial market we are now asked to accept a doubling of the pipeline to facilitate exports and we will primarily be reliant on foreign refined products for local consumption.

Quizzical I am gobsmacked that you have swallowed the oiligarchies kool-aid to the extent that you have.

NDPP

quizzical wrote:

what light to shed?

the union leadership it looks like doesn't give a fk if there's racist soldiers of oden in it's ranks or members advocating violence. free speech and all you know.

again the story isn't in the public realm though David Climenhaga from here knows about it.

 

NDPP wrote:

JDL Partners With Soldiers of Odin on 'Ad Hoc' Basis

https://www.cjnews.com/news/canada/jdl-partners-soldiers-odin-ad-hoc

"Weinstein believes the Soldiers of Odin have gotten a bad rap."

Careful, they're friends of Israel.

quizzical

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pipelines are safer than trains, so what? 

Quizzical I am gobsmacked that you have swallowed the oiligarchies kool-aid to the extent that you have.

the reality is the oil is getting transported and it will continue in every increasing amounts. rail is not safe for people or the environment.

haven't swallowed anything. 

i want a refinery. others want a refinery. but potential allies are just focused on shut it down. fkn short sighted.  then we import at higher costs as consumption can't go down because there's no alternatives and people and goods need transporting.

we'll get a world like Atlas Shrugged if unrealistic thinking doesn't improve.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

How does an export pipeline help anything? In the '70's I worked on the refinery in Rocky Mountain House and in the '90's I worked on the Bi-Provincial Upgrader. I want to see some form of sanity in decision making and there appears to be none. Alberta has better energy options that will likely provide more jobs however the problem is the oiligarchy control both how capital is allocated and the government that is charged with protecting the public interest.

Instead of subsidizing the tar sand we should be suing there asses off to pay for the cleanup and using that money to employ more people. Hell the tar sands is moving to nearly complete automation so its not like its going to increasingly employ Albertan's.

NDPP

No, but those cancer clusters may...

Pages