no pipeline, no tankers, no problem 2

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

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

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

Norman Spector Retweeted Mike Hornbrook

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

Norman Spector added,

Mike Hornbrook @mikehornbrook

Replying to @nspector4

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

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

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

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

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

Pondering wrote:

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

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

Martin N. wrote:

Pondering wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Martin N. wrote:

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

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

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are quite the authority

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

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

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

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

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

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

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

USA players

USA kills Canadian Pipelines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What else did oil sands opponents do?

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

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

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

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

NorthReport wrote:

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

 

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

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

Martin N. wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kinder Morgan’s Emergency Response Limitations

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

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

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

Martin N. wrote:

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

This is not new and it makes no difference. It doesn't make bitumen any safer.