!!!
Kinder Morgan Pipleline Project
Fri, 2017-01-13 19:55
#1
Kinder Morgan Pipleline Project
Fri, 2017-01-13 19:59
#2
Notley shrugs off B.C.'s economic deal with Kinder Morgan
http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/notley-shrugs-off-b-c-s-economic-...
Fri, 2017-01-13 20:25
#3
this is not news.
shoudn't even be considered as news worthy by the CH.
any rational person realizes it's none of AB's business what deal BC cuts with KM.
llolololol
Sat, 2017-01-14 17:44
#4
Sat, 2017-01-14 17:51
#5
Sun, 2017-01-15 12:49
#6
Pipeline politics: What's next for B.C.?
The proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion once resembled a political morass, something that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and B.C. Premier Christy Clark would wade into at their peril.
But both politicians have managed to put pipeline opponents on the defensive as both sides head into a three-front battle in 2017 over the $6.8-billion project.
Trudeau, one anti-pipeline environmentalist acknowledged Thursday, did a “masterful” job in packaging his approval with a string of environmental measures — a $1.5-billion Oceans Protection Plan, a national carbon tax and the cancellation of the Northern Gateway pipeline — aimed at easing the public’s concerns.
And Clark followed Trudeau’s lead this week with her own slickly packaged approval that included $25 million a year wrested from the company for a B.C. “Clean Communities” program.
“They’ve done this brilliantly,” University of B.C. political scientist Richard Johnston said Thursday.
But the battle is far from over as the conflict moves to the B.C. campaign trail, the courts and — when construction starts next autumn — the street.
“Completion of the pipeline just became even more probable, but it is by no means a lock,” said George Hoberg, who teaches environmental and energy policy at UBC’s Liu Institute for Global Studies.
Veteran B.C. climate-change campaigner Ben West said the next key battleground is the May B.C. election, which pits Kinder Morgan opponents John Horgan and Green leader Andrew Weaver against Clark. If the project becomes a ballot issue, she will be in a strong position to win re-election unless pipeline opposition coalesces around one of her two opponents.
West said he’s heard talk among pipeline opponents about the need to adopt a strategic voting strategy aimed at preventing vote-splitting among anti-Clark forces. However, Johnston also said he can’t see how Horgan could block the project given that both governments have approved it, and interprovincial pipelines is a matter under federal jurisdiction.
“The premier of B.C. cannot stop it,” he said.
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/local+news/pipeline+politics+what+ne...
Sun, 2017-01-15 13:00
#7
Sounds like a win-win-win situation here.
Enlisting Alberta First Nations to bolster pipeline monitoring
Program wants those who know the land best to keep an eye on oil and gas infrastructure
First to be affected
Treaty 6 Grand Chief Wilton Littlechild said he also likes the InnoTech idea, given indigenous people are often the first to be affected when disaster strikes.
It would also make use of a workforce in need of opportunities, he added.
"If you look at the demographics, it's very clear that we're the biggest available pool just by age for labour skills," he said.
"Many times the employment opportunities are given to outsiders. Our local availability and capacity is often overlooked in terms of employment opportunities."
'Long-term relationships with indigenous communities'
Jule Asterisk, with the environmental coalition Keepers of the Water, said she's encouraged by the plan.
"Of course it's always dependent on how it's done and we're hopeful that these programs will be able to be done in a respectful way," she said.
Leanne Madder, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, said teaming with indigenous communities is nothing new to the industry.
"Pipeline operators seek to establish long-term relationships with indigenous communities. To build the foundation of this relationship, companies often help indigenous communities develop the skills necessary to benefit from pipeline development while protecting the environment and their traditional way of life," she said.
"Pipeline companies promote indigenous employment in every way possible, whether through direct employment or through the contractors they work with."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/first-nations-pipeline-monitoring-...
Sun, 2017-01-15 13:12
#8
Agreed
Trudeau says Canada's oil sands must be phased out
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trudeau-says-canadas-oil-sands-must-phased-03...
Sun, 2017-01-15 17:04
#9
Surrey, Langley in talks for Kinder Morgan pipeline benefits
To compensate for pipeline construction disruption, some but not all municipalities along the route will get significant benefits payouts from Kinder Morgan. — Image Credit: Kinder Morgan Canada
Sun, 2017-01-15 17:09
#10
Kinder Morgan — what's in it for B.C.
Premier says millions coming for community environmental projects
The province has given its OK to the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. Photograph By File
B.C.'s approval of the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion was never in serious doubt but whether the province got enough out of the deal is still an open question.
Apparently, the clincher was a $1-billion investment fund for community environmental projects over 20 years based on money B.C. will get from Kinder Morgan's oil sales on the spot market, about 17% of shipments.
This fund is not likely to silence the criticism, nor will it prevent court cases by First Nations groups against the pipeline, which will pass through Coquitlam. But it does give the premier talking points in the lead-up to May's provincial election, however little money this actually is in the big picture.
Also uncertain is how many jobs British Columbians will get from construction given that there is a local shortage of skilled labour.
We can only hope the promised safety measures to protect B.C. waters are adequate.
http://www.tricitynews.com/opinion/editorial/editorial-kinder-morgan-wha...
Sun, 2017-01-15 17:14
#11
We need a ‘least-risk’ plan for pipelines
http://www.burnabynow.com/opinion/your-letters/letters-we-need-a-least-r...
Sun, 2017-01-15 17:16
#12
Some credit for Notley on oil file this week — but not too much 
http://www.edmontonsun.com/2017/01/14/some-credit-for-notley-on-oil-file...
Sun, 2017-01-15 20:23
#13
There's no way that building the pipeline would ever lead to the oilsands being phased out.
And we already know that most of the trivially small number of jobs the pipleline would create in B.C. would actually go to unionized B.C. workers.
You've been sold a bill of goods, North.
Sun, 2017-01-15 22:19
#14
Ken why dont you elaborate on the small number of jobs for BC because Kinder Morgan says there are going to be thousands of jobs My goodness it seems they already have hundreds on their payroll and the project has not even started yet And speaking of that where is the project actually going to start construction in Burnaby cutting through Burnaby mountain I hope so as I am looking forward to Corrigan being arrested and thrown in the slammer People better realize when they start fucking with people's jobs there will a big price to pay for that
Mon, 2017-01-16 02:36
#15
Why would you ever believe anything Kinder Morgan says?
There the sort of enterprise that promises the moon, then delivers but crumbs of moldy green cheese. They have no intention of employing any significant number of unionized B.C. workers. Where the hell are the 100,000 jobs Christy promised four years ago?
Nobody is screwing with people's jobs...the planet is in a massive enviromental crisis and we can't just let the extractive industrial complex do whatever the hell they want to who- and whatever they want to do it to.
And there is no way that what you are doing here is ever going to persuade the BCNDP to support the pipeline...especially since doing so means losing every seat on Vancouver Island to the BC Greens and having no chance of ever retaking those seats in any future election.
Mon, 2017-01-16 19:00
#16
Researchers to study if oil-eating 'bugs' could clean up Arctic oil spills
Feds, province commit $4M to U of M Arctic oil spill research
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/arctic-oil-spill-research-1.3937909
Mon, 2017-01-16 22:22
#17
KM will divide the project into ~ 40 - 100km sections and contractors will bid on these separately. For this size of pipe, around 800 - 900 workers are needed by each contractor, not counting KM staff or support like camps or transport. Day rates are ~ $500 for labourers, $1000 for trades, $1500 for formen and $2500 for inspectors. Every town and pit stop along the route will be inundated with business.
Tue, 2017-01-17 12:51
#18
Ken why dont you elaborate on the small number of jobs for BC because Kinder Morgan says there are going to be thousands of jobs My goodness it seems they already have hundreds on their payroll and the project has not even started yet And speaking of that where is the project actually going to start construction in Burnaby cutting through Burnaby mountain I hope so as I am looking forward to Corrigan being arrested and thrown in the slammer People better realize when they start fucking with people's jobs there will a big price to pay for that
NR, you're actually calling for, or looking forward to a local Mayor, who is allying himself with first nations groups, to be thrown in thee slammer for protesting an environmentally dubious project, while you ally yourself with big corporate interests. Really? You've been on this board for 8 years. it's time to review the policies and foundational principles of babble. Your posts are becoming increasingly out of line.
Tue, 2017-01-17 14:45
#19
Or, NR is advocating for jobs in industry, not necessarily for industry. Why is it against babble policy to advocate for the unemployed? .... why is it ok to wish harm to 'alt-right' or neo-liberal chaps but to be chastised by mods for daring to criticize the 'right sort'.Toronto elites crapping on BC unemployed smells more of the regional biases that divide us than it does of progressive ideals.... . Whether anyone wants to acknowledge it or not, there is a lot of support for this project in BC, even on Fantasy Island, Cranky Corrigan and Mayor Moonbeam aside. Much of the opposition has nothing to do with the project. It is municipal politics and nimbyism at play. FN leveraging the issue to move claims forward against federal intransigence.Take note also that the NDP snatched defeat from the jaws of victory over this very issue when Adrian Dix came out against the project. ....Personally, I have no opinion on whether to build it or not, preferring to have faith in our democratic institutions to choose the right course based on fact, not hyperbole; rule of law, not anarchy. No wonder there is only a score of poster agreeing with each other left here. Level the playing field.
Tue, 2017-01-17 14:57
#20
Toronto elites crapping on BC unemployed smells more of the regional biases that divide us than it does of progressive ideals.... .
What a load of horseshit.
Tue, 2017-01-17 14:59
#21
Toronto elites crapping on BC unemployed smells more of the regional biases that divide us than it does of progressive ideals.... .What a load of horseshit.
We'll put you down as undecided then?
Tue, 2017-01-17 15:11
#22
We'll put you down as undecided then?Toronto elites crapping on BC unemployed smells more of the regional biases that divide us than it does of progressive ideals.... .What a load of horseshit.
Nobody is crapping on the BC unemployed. You're just making stuff up. You're the who is being divisive. Again how many jobs are we talking about here for BC? From what I have read, no more than a few thousand temporary jobs and maybe a couple hundred permanent ones. And it's becoming clear that a lot of those jobs will go to specialized workers brought in.
And it endangers a bunch of existing industries. This offers nothing for the BC unemployed...or employed.
Tue, 2017-01-17 15:13
#23
Or, NR is advocating for jobs in industry, not necessarily for industry. Why is it against babble policy to advocate for the unemployed? .... why is it ok to wish harm to 'alt-right' or neo-liberal chaps but to be chastised by mods for daring to criticize the 'right sort'.Toronto elites crapping on BC unemployed smells more of the regional biases that divide us than it does of progressive ideals.... . Whether anyone wants to acknowledge it or not, there is a lot of support for this project in BC, even on Fantasy Island, Cranky Corrigan and Mayor Moonbeam aside. Much of the opposition has nothing to do with the project. It is municipal politics and nimbyism at play. FN leveraging the issue to move claims forward against federal intransigence.Take note also that the NDP snatched defeat from the jaws of victory over this very issue when Adrian Dix came out against the project. ....Personally, I have no opinion on whether to build it or not, preferring to have faith in our democratic institutions to choose the right course based on fact, not hyperbole; rule of law, not anarchy. No wonder there is only a score of poster agreeing with each other left here. Level the playing field.
I agree. Like you I don't know if it should go ahead or not but most of the arguments against this seem like nothing but nimbyism. I also note with some amusement that people are constantly bemoaning the loss of factory jobs in the east. Because we all know they have no environmental footprint whatsoever.
Tue, 2017-01-17 15:27
#24
Or, NR is advocating for jobs in industry, not necessarily for industry. Why is it against babble policy to advocate for the unemployed? ....
You seem to be "overlooking" that NR was warned specifically for saying he hopes to see Mayor Corrigan in jail. He has never had a warning, and will not get one, for his ceaseless repetition of "what about the jobs in this?"
And by te way- you saying that you are not decided on the issue has extremely little credibility.
Tue, 2017-01-17 15:35
#25
Same point to you jjuares, as I put to Martin...
You have to wonder about the sincerity of statements people have not decided when they utterly dismiss arguments against the pipeline.
Tue, 2017-01-17 15:36
#26
Or, NR is advocating for jobs in industry, not necessarily for industry. Why is it against babble policy to advocate for the unemployed? ....You seem to be "overlooking" that NR was warned specifically for saying he hopes to see Mayor Corrigan in jail. He has never had a warning, and will not get one, for his ceaseless repetition of "what about the jobs in this?"
And by te way- you saying that you are not decided on the issue has extremely little credibility.
Yeah, I addressed that issue. Either enforce policy even handed or be hypocrites. I have an investment in this issue in that I live on oceanfront in BC and any potential spill will have a great effect on me. What's your investment in KM, other than the benefit of your opinion?
Tue, 2017-01-17 15:38
#27
I agree. Like you I don't know if it should go ahead or not but most of the arguments against this seem like nothing but nimbyism.
"Mere" nimbyism, eh?
I fought fracking here because would utterly transform and devastate the area I live- chronic air pollution included. That is nimbyism.
Tue, 2017-01-17 15:40
#28
I didnt ask for your investment. You say you addressed the issue, but you didt say a word about NR calling for Corrigan to be in jail.
Tue, 2017-01-17 15:46
#29
Same point to you jjuares, as I put to Martin...
You have to wonder about the sincerity of statements people have not decided when they utterly dismiss arguments against the pipeline.
You also have to wonder about the sincerity of people who refuse any fact that disputes the narrative they adopt. KM and predecessors have shipped oil on tankers from their location for 60 years without any shipping issues. Over 500 tankers per year travel to Cherry Point and Anacortes Wa, 20 or so miles south of the Vancouver area. Transport Canada considers the route safe. Safety is strict. ....Even though I am at some small risk, I'm prepared to be reasonable and allow democratic institutions, rather than anarchy rule the day
Tue, 2017-01-17 15:46
#30
v
Tue, 2017-01-17 15:50
#31
I shouldnt grace that with a reply. You damn well know that is not some "argument ending facts".
It is arrogant to assume that people do not agree with your interpretation of the facts just dont know them at all.
Tue, 2017-01-17 15:51
#32
And as far as even handed goes- NR did not get a warning for going on an and on with a meme unpopular here. But calling for Corrigan in jail crosses the line. If you dont think it is fair, and hypocritical, to wish the same harm on alt-right figures... tough. What NR did crlearly violates policy. Wishing that in alt right figures does not. If you dont like that, thats your privilege, but dont expect any sympathy.
Tue, 2017-01-17 15:53
#33
Unpopular? That's your excuse? You can ignore facts because the issue is "unpopular"? There is a lot of truthiness around when discussing babble policy. It's ok to wish harm on Trumplethinskin but hoping Corrigan goes to jail is verboten? I'm no lawyer but I think you've got your wig on backwards. Better go read babble policy again.And as far as even handed goes- did not get a warning for going on an and on with a meme unpopular here. But calling for Corrigan in jail crosses the line. If you dont think it is fair, and hypocritical, to wish the same harm on alt-right figures... tough. What NR did crlearly violates policy. Wishing that in alt right figures does not. If you dont like that, thats your privilege, but dont expect any sympathy.
Tue, 2017-01-17 16:02
#34
I shouldnt grace that with a reply. You damn well know that is not some "argument ending facts".
It is arrogant to assume that people do not agree with your interpretation of the facts just dont know them at all.
What you should be doing is arguing the facts, not bitching about my popularity or lack thereof...... how about arguing the case I present about shipping rather than whining about 'arrogance' in my nerve in presenting any fact that runs counter to your illogical narrative. You prove my case for me, ignoring critical thinking in preference for ad hominem attacks. Belittling and dismissing facts rather than presenting an opposing critique.
Tue, 2017-01-17 16:16
#35
Same point to you jjuares, as I put to Martin...
You have to wonder about the sincerity of statements people have not decided when they utterly dismiss arguments against the pipeline.
Well, when you question the sincerity of people you are getting close to personal attacks. That is far different than characterizing their arguments. As For me I have never dismissed the arguments against these pipelines. I have never questioned the arguments around safety for example. However, I have criticized people on this board who have attacked aboriginal leaders who support the oil sands. And of course I have critized people who believe that a factory moving to Mexico is terrible but hey buying our oil from Saudi Arabia is peachy.
Tue, 2017-01-17 16:40
#36
There is a lot of truthiness around when discussing babble policy. It's ok to wish harm on Trumplethinskin but hoping Corrigan goes to jail is verboten? I'm no lawyer but I think you've got your wig on backwards. Better go read babble policy again.
I dont go around wishing harm on anyone. But babble policy explicitly supports a number of progressive values. And makes no bones that is fair in some universal sense.
In plain language- you can go anywhere and get rhetorical excess pointed at anything and everything. But this is set as a place you dont have to put up with that being directed a limited number of progressive values. So, yes, you can freely wish harm on Trumplethinskin, but not Mayor Corrigan. If that bothers you, nobody is making you be exposed to it.
Tue, 2017-01-17 17:13
#37
Same point to you jjuares, as I put to Martin...You also have to wonder about the sincerity of people who refuse any fact that disputes the narrative they adopt. KM and predecessors have shipped oil on tankers from their location for 60 years without any shipping issues. Over 500 tankers per year travel to Cherry Point and Anacortes Wa, 20 or so miles south of the Vancouver area. Transport Canada considers the route safe. Safety is strict. ....Even though I am at some small risk, I'm prepared to be reasonable and allow democratic institutions, rather than anarchy rule the dayYou have to wonder about the sincerity of statements people have not decided when they utterly dismiss arguments against the pipeline.
what democratic institutions are you speaking about? the NEB? the BC Liberal government? lololol you're ridiculous.
and fk off with your comments trying to frame disagreement with expansion as anarchy. your words are a load of bs.
Tue, 2017-01-17 17:26
#38
There is a lot of truthiness around when discussing babble policy. It's ok to wish harm on Trumplethinskin but hoping Corrigan goes to jail is verboten? I'm no lawyer but I think you've got your wig on backwards. Better go read babble policy again.I dont go around wishing harm on anyone. But babble policy explicitly supports a number of progressive values. And makes no bones that is fair in some universal sense.
In plain language- you can go anywhere and get rhetorical excess pointed at anything and everything. But this is set as a place you dont have to put up with that being directed a limited number of progressive values. So, yes, you can freely wish harm on Trumplethinskin, but not Mayor Corrigan. If that bothers you, nobody is making you be exposed to it.
So, as a member of a democratic society, you are ok with someone wishing harm to a democratically elected leader of a foreign country because its progressive? I must say that there is some truthiness in your position, if the extreme end of 'progressive' thought is considered but, also considering the thoughtful, logical thinking expressed by many on this site, I refuse to consider that you speak for anyone other than yourself and your fellow travellers....... Now, is it possible to address the subject of KM or is your mission here solely to inform us of my unpopularity and scold me for unauthorized thought?
ETA: in plain language, you can spout all the enviro talking points you like but unless someone can refute your argument, you are just talking to yourself. Why are you so afraid to discuss KM?
Tue, 2017-01-17 17:31
#39
Same point to you jjuares, as I put to Martin...You also have to wonder about the sincerity of people who refuse any fact that disputes the narrative they adopt. KM and predecessors have shipped oil on tankers from their location for 60 years without any shipping issues. Over 500 tankers per year travel to Cherry Point and Anacortes Wa, 20 or so miles south of the Vancouver area. Transport Canada considers the route safe. Safety is strict. ....Even though I am at some small risk, I'm prepared to be reasonable and allow democratic institutions, rather than anarchy rule the dayYou have to wonder about the sincerity of statements people have not decided when they utterly dismiss arguments against the pipeline.
what democratic institutions are you speaking about? the NEB? the BC Liberal government? lololol you're ridiculous.
and fk off with your comments trying to frame disagreement with expansion as anarchy. your words are a load of bs.
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.
Tue, 2017-01-17 17:54
#40
I agree. Like you I don't know if it should go ahead or not but most of the arguments against this seem like nothing but nimbyism."Mere" nimbyism, eh?
I fought fracking here because would utterly transform and devastate the area I live- chronic air pollution included. That is nimbyism.
The geology of the area may support a fracking ban. In any case, it's a provincial issue. The problem for us in the west is not whether or not you wish to develop your resources but the alacrity with which you are willing to accept access to ours once the dirty oil money is green washed through the Equalisation Plan. All resources should be either included or excluded from equalisation.
Tue, 2017-01-17 18:03
#41
Martin N. wrote:
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.
what democratic institutions are you talking about?????
please list.
no discussion can happen without a starting point of what are the democratic institutions you're speaking about. because it's just empty rhetoric or propaganda without indicating WHAT institutions you're speaking about.
pretending others are unreasonable when being blunt about your trying to frame a democratic option like disagreement as anarchy is just as bullshitty as the false framing itself.
Tue, 2017-01-17 18:23
#42
Martin N. wrote:
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.what democratic institutions are you talking about?????
please list.
no discussion can happen without a starting point of what are the democratic institutions you're speaking about. because it's just empty rhetoric or propaganda without indicating WHAT institutions you're speaking about.
pretending others are unreasonable when being blunt about your trying to frame a democratic option like disagreement as anarchy is just as bullshitty as the false framing itself.
I am not disputing the negatives of this project. I am, however, disputing the lack of reference to the positives and the lack of critical thinking involved in coming to an informed decision. Personally, I prefer no twinning or at least a terminal not in the urban environment but the options are limited. But, do I have the right to impose my opinion on others who will benefit from the construction and continuing public revenues of this project? Am I not required by the Constitution Act to follow the law and allow the democratic institutions of the land - the duly elected governments, the courts and the regulatory agencies - to decide the issue? ..... It is fair dinkum to protest, organize and demonstrate to influence these democratic institutions. It is not to break the law and attempt to thwart legal decisions via anarchy.
Tue, 2017-01-17 18:24
#43
Same point to you jjuares, as I put to Martin...
You have to wonder about the sincerity of statements people have not decided when they utterly dismiss arguments against the pipeline.
You also have to wonder about the sincerity of people who refuse any fact that disputes the narrative they adopt. KM and predecessors have shipped oil on tankers from their location for 60 years without any shipping issues. Over 500 tankers per year travel to Cherry Point and Anacortes Wa, 20 or so miles south of the Vancouver area. Transport Canada considers the route safe. Safety is strict. ....Even though I am at some small risk, I'm prepared to be reasonable and allow democratic institutions, rather than anarchy rule the day
None of those 500 tankers carry bitumen. The Kalamazoo spill continues to prove that a bitumen spill is nearly impossible to clean up properly. In Kalamazoo the spill and resultant polluted air caused health advisories in a radius that in Vancouver would affect hundreds of thousands of people. Of course its nimbyism to object to a foreign corporation more than doubling the storage tanks of a toxic substance on a mountain above your property.
A public utility ran the pipeline for most of its first fifty years and had a fairly good safety record. Kinder Morgan on the other hand has had a mediocre record since it took over. The new clean-up regime is inadequate because you can't clean up bitumen. It is not crude oil that you can skim and recover a high percentage of. However if you are Kinder Morgan any spill leads to more profit in your clean up division. Also our rightly praised safety record in the port of Vancouver and other Canadian ports is because of our restrictive cabotage and pilotage laws. Those are under attack as we speak as the shipping industry seeks to decimate our marine industry and replace it with foreign crews.
Thats before we even get into the mega debate about whether we can survive the planetary changes that will result from burning all the tar sands gunk.
I too would be prepared to allow reasonable and democratic institutions to decide. In fact that is precisely the promise that Trudeau made that won him seats in BC. The process used was neither reasonable nor democratic. Instead residents of the port area are being forced to take enormous risks for little potential gain to their community.
Tue, 2017-01-17 18:37
#44
Martin N. wrote:
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.what democratic institutions are you talking about?????
please list.
no discussion can happen without a starting point of what are the democratic institutions you're speaking about. because it's just empty rhetoric or propaganda without indicating WHAT institutions you're speaking about.
pretending others are unreasonable when being blunt about your trying to frame a democratic option like disagreement as anarchy is just as bullshitty as the false framing itself.
Well, bullshitty is in the nose of the beholder, to paraphrase an obscure Irish novelist. I'm framing anarchy as anarchy, although ICould have been clearer.
Tue, 2017-01-17 18:43
#45
So, k, what are you saying? That our democratic institutions failed us or that Trudeau's decision was illegal or?
Tue, 2017-01-17 19:38
#46
So, k, what are you saying? That our democratic institutions failed us or that Trudeau's decision was illegal or?
Yes in fact I am saying that our democracy consists of liars like Trudeau who make promises that they do not keep. If Trudeau had run on a platform of approving Site C and Kinder Morgan and dismissing indigenous rights as secondary to our constitution I suspect that he might not be PM. Whether or not the government's actions were illegal will be determined in the various lawsuits that have been initiated against it.
I note for the record that you did not try to refute any of my valid points above. That is understandable since they are the facts.
Tue, 2017-01-17 21:21
#47
Martin N. wrote:I am not disputing the negatives of this project. I am, however, disputing the lack of reference to the positives and the lack of critical thinking involved in coming to an informed decision. Personally, I prefer no twinning or at least a terminal not in the urban environment but the options are limited. But, do I have the right to impose my opinion on others who will benefit from the construction and continuing public revenues of this project? Am I not required by the Constitution Act to follow the law and allow the democratic institutions of the land - the duly elected governments, the courts and the regulatory agencies - to decide the issue? ..... It is fair dinkum to protest, organize and demonstrate to influence these democratic institutions. It is not to break the law and attempt to thwart legal decisions via anarchy.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.what democratic institutions are you talking about?????
please list.
no discussion can happen without a starting point of what are the democratic institutions you're speaking about. because it's just empty rhetoric or propaganda without indicating WHAT institutions you're speaking about.
pretending others are unreasonable when being blunt about your trying to frame a democratic option like disagreement as anarchy is just as bullshitty as the false framing itself.
you don't know whether or not people have utilized critical thinking in coming to an informed decision. your assumption is no. it's wrong.
what law you talking about breaking?
people have a right to pressure their governments. always.
Wed, 2017-01-18 02:12
#48
Seems like the investment community likes KM's chances.
Kinder Morgan, Inc. (NYSE:KMI) Analyst Estimates
http://theindependentrepublic.com/2017/01/17/kinder-morgan-inc-nysekmi-a...
Wed, 2017-01-18 02:27
#49
So, k, what are you saying? That our democratic institutions failed us or that Trudeau's decision was illegal or?
Yes in fact I am saying that our democracy consists of liars like Trudeau who make promises that they do not keep. If Trudeau had run on a platform of approving Site C and Kinder Morgan and dismissing indigenous rights as secondary to our constitution I suspect that he might not be PM. Whether or not the government's actions were illegal will be determined in the various lawsuits that have been initiated against it.
I note for the record that you did not try to refute any of my valid points above. That is understandable since they are the facts.
Well then, the issue is with elections and the political process, not with the legality of the government to decide the issue....... For the record, as a cunning politician once said: "the facts are the facts". It is the dissemination of weasel words that resemble facts that I take issue with.
Wed, 2017-01-18 02:48
#50
Trudeau: Liberals Inherited 'Mistrust' From Previous Tory Government On Pipelines
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/01/17/liberals-inherited-mistrust-from...
Wed, 2017-01-18 10:56
#51
Well then, the issue is with elections and the political process, not with the legality of the government to decide the issue....... For the record, as a cunning politician once said: "the facts are the facts". It is the dissemination of weasel words that resemble facts that I take issue with.
Indeed Trudeau has proven to be as weasel like as Harper only with a smile not a scowl. The Constitution of Canada was amended to give indigenous people rights. That is where the legality of this pipeline is in question. The Liberals lied to get elected and they are acting as a dictatorship given the lack of both local consent and indigenous consent for a project that risks so much. Here are a couple of good facts that some Liberal supporters will try to turn into weasel words.
When Prime Minister Trudeau made his announcement that he would approve the Kinder Morgan pipeline, I was struck but his certainty that this pipeline was absolutely safe. He said: “If I thought this project was unsafe for the B.C. coast, I would reject it.”
How could he say that? How can he not know that hundreds of scientists have looked at this project and said that it isn’t safe? Not for the water and certainly not for the climate. The assessment that we had done by experts showed more than a 70 per cent chance of a serious spill in the next 50 years. Officials in Washington State have expressed serious concerns about Canada's inability to respond to a spill, even with the new commitments made by our Prime Minister. This is a drastic contradiction.
...
To transport bitumen it must be heated and diluted with volatile solvents like naptha and cancer-causing chemicals such as benzene. No company or government is able to guarantee the safety of oil pipelines, terminals or tank farms and none have claimed to, until now.
If we had a major spill in the ocean it would likely have a $1.2 billion impact on BC’s economy. It would sound the death knell for southern resident orcas and it could destroy both salmon and shellfish habitat, not to mention seriously endangering human health in the most densely populated part of the province. It could mean the end of our beaches, our sport and commercial fisheries and all of the recreational and ceremonial boating and water sports that make our coast the beautiful place that it is.
And then there’s the storage facility for this pipeline. According to Burnaby’s fire chief, a fire at the tank farm could kill 10,000 people. It is built below a university and in close proximity to 4 elementary schools and a high school.
Prime Minister Trudeau says that his government's decision is based in science. Yet he is still relying on the highly flawed National Energy Board report that we have thoroughly analyzed in the form of written reports handed directly to the minister of natural resources the day before the pipeline was approved, weeks before the deadline to do so. I doubt they even read the report we invested so much time and money to produce.
http://blog.twnsacredtrust.ca/blog/a-message-from-charlene-aleck