no pipeline, no tankers, no problem 2

NDPP wrote:

The Oil Giant That Outsmarted Trudeau

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/The-Oil-Giant-That-Outsmarted-Trud...

"As Reuters discovered, it appears that Canada has been taken for a ride by Kinder Morgan..."

A much shorter article can be titled: Everyone who has not outsmarted Trudeau.

Martin N. wrote:

Pogo wrote:

How many examples of creating change do I need to provide to change your mind.

Change my mind in what regard?

It was about your view that non-political action just accomplishes incremental (I think that was your word) change and most change happens at the ballot box.  However I am just a bit gobsmacked from your last post.  Is your circle of friends that small? Do you really think the people fighting the pipeline can be pidgeon-holed into these groups? 

 

 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Martin how much are you being paid for attacking people on social media?

Seriously? You think anyone will pay for countering babble activism?

For Canada, this project is necessary This project can be and will be built safely to a new global standard . Most anti- pipeline protesters are law abiding. The radical minority who choose to defy law and order will be thwarted and life will go on.

Disinformation across all platforms is what oil companies pay for. Are you trying to telll me that our oil oligarchy does not pay people to spread their message across social media platforms.  Any other fairy tales you believe in?  But thanks for telling me that you are not paid but instead are merely a very useful idiot. It means I have even less respect for your attitude than when I thought you were merely a capitalist cashing in instread of a idiotic dupe with a self image problem.

You know nothing about the people who are stepping up to stop the pipeline. They are not a radical minority and that line is a right wing trope.

Thanks for the compliments. It is plain from the frustration evident in your diatribe that your toolbox is depleted. I am a capitalist but being described as a very useful idiot by an individual of your pedigree is high praise indeed.

I suppose I'm a product of my generation but I cannot understand the logic, or more to the point, the lack thereof, of a movement devoted to negative consequences rather than working together to resolve issues to the benefit of all.

Trope chucking may be the last resort of an empty toolbox but the tropiest of all is the certainty with which 'activists' focus on a potential spill that has never yet happened and whose potential in future will be mitigated by world class prevention measures. 

I suppose amongst all the trope examining and evil capitalist denouncing, actuarial deductions are considered redundant to saving the planet when hysterical hyperbole is readily at hand.

None the less, opponents of progress are being convinced that this project is positive for Canada as their particular grievance is addressed. The pro- pipeline majority is also rousing itself as the excesses of 'activists' manifests itself into the public consciousness.

TRNN: Trudeau Government Spends Billions to Acquire Tar Sands Pipeline in Canada 

https://therealnews.com/stories/trudeau-government-spends-billions-to-ac...

"Adam Scott of Oil Change International says Trudeau's TransMountain acquisition makes no economic or environmental sense, it is 'incredibly stupid."

Stop The Kinder Morgan Buyout: Protest Actions - Monday, June 4th 

https://act.leadnow.ca/stop-km-buyout/

Join a snap action outside your MPs office, Monday, June 4th! Tell others!

Thanks fo your response Martin N. Nice combinbation of idle speculation on other peoples views and rather weak insults. As ususal though you don't include a single fact.  Climate change is a game of keyboard warrior to you. To many of us it is a struggle to save some future for our grandchildren.

And lots do. And it shows...

Cullen added “If it’s too risky for an oil pipeline company to build an oil pipeline, why is it okay for the Canadian public to pick up all of that risk?”

Because the 'risk' is political, not economic? If protesters obey the law, there is no risk that private enterprise cannot mitigate. 

Nearly (6/10) of these respondents believe in climate change.

Actually, 54%, according to the numbers at the link. Which, if I'm reading this correctly, means that more BCers oppose Kinder Morgan than believe in climate-change.

That's possible, I suppose, though I'm trying to imagine the kind of voter who is so hostile to environmentalism that he thinks the scientists are all lying about global-warming, but is really concerned about protecting nature from crude oil.

No, it really doesn't seem like an objective survey to me...

Question #2

Would you support a one year moratorium on Foreign Investment in BC residential housing, which moratorium will specifically prohibit the sale of any residential property under one acre size, including attached dwellings like Townhouses and Condominiums anywhere in British Columbia, your decision to be founded on the basis, that this action is required out of an abundance of caution to help sort BC뭩 Residential Real Estate Difficulties, including acknowledged reports that 5-10% of BC homes are owned by foreign investors, and given the concentration of ownership in certain cities likely equals one in 5 to 1 in 3.

So, in the question itself, they're stating the arguments for the policy, without also providing the arguments against?

 

 

 

voice of the damned wrote:

No, it really doesn't seem like an objective survey to me...

Question #2

Would you support a one year moratorium on Foreign Investment in BC residential housing, which moratorium will specifically prohibit the sale of any residential property under one acre size, including attached dwellings like Townhouses and Condominiums anywhere in British Columbia, your decision to be founded on the basis, that this action is required out of an abundance of caution to help sort BC뭩 Residential Real Estate Difficulties, including acknowledged reports that 5-10% of BC homes are owned by foreign investors, and given the concentration of ownership in certain cities likely equals one in 5 to 1 in 3.

So, in the question itself, they're stating the arguments for the policy, without also providing the arguments against?

I thought so at first, but it isn't that biased. It mainly cites facts that suggest there is a problem. Then mentions a potential solution while describing it as being taken "in an abundance of caution". So the question doesn't suggest there is any urgency or even a direct causal link.

Aren't  pollsters paid to ask certain questions? I do like to see the actual questions, and even the order they are asked in but even if one or two questions are biased to me that doesn't negate the usefulness of the others. In this case it seems the questions are intended to measure support for progressive action.

I take all polls with a grain of salt. Particularly when they are close or internet based. These numbers on the pipeline are not marginal. They are definitive even with a widened margin of error. I'm surprised there is so much support for the pipeline. I expected the opposition to be stronger.

Martin N. wrote:

In fact the last time someone checked, 19 out of 20 people polled don’t believe Glen could tell the difference between a statistical standard deviation and a VW Beetle standard transmission.

Mild entertainment? Sure. Credible polling? Vroom, vroom!

I will concede without following the link. I hate when I get suckered like that. While his poll may be a dud I still think he is pretty close on pipeline sentiment.

The thought of the Liberal's buying TransMountain and building a pipeline makes me all nostalgic.

Northeast coal was one of Canada’s last megaprojects – an economic policy in vogue until the early 1980’s that involved governments partnering with big business to bolster strategically important industries and economically underdeveloped regions.

Worried about energy-price hikes and supply uncertainty in the 1970’s, Japan’s steel industry wanted new, stable sources of metallurgical coal.

Social Credit Premier Bill Bennett saw a chance to open up part of northeastern British Columbia to economic development. The province funded construction of a $400 million, 300 kilometre rail line linking the mines to CN Rail’s main line to Prince Rupert. It also built access roads, hydro connections and services for the all-new town of Tumbler Ridge, about 60 km west of the Alberta border. The federal government helped build the coal terminal at Prince Rupert. The total bill to taxpayers came to about $1.6 billion. Development of the two mines added up to another $1.5 billion in private investment. The overall investment was to be guaranteed by 15-year supply contracts with the mines’ Japanese customers at well above the market price. But before the first Japanese ore freighter even loaded its first shipment at the Ridley Island terminal in January 1984, the steelmakers began demanding cuts in volume and price.

The predicted non-stop rise in oil, gas and coal prices never happened. Japan’s steelmakers faced new competition from mills in places like India and South Korea, which had access to cheaper coal sources.

The Japanese never threatened to walk away from their commitments. But a series of arbitrations began pushing down the price from the original contract price of $98 CDN a tonne, about 40 per cent above prevailing world prices. A deal signed in 1997 extending the long-term contract until March 31, 2003 keyed northeast coal to prices from southeastern B.C. and Australian mines. Contract volumes, too, have ratcheted down.

The reduction forced BC Rail and CN Rail to cut freight rates for the 100-car coal trains and Ridley Island terminal to reduce its handling fees. BC Rail spokesman Alan Dever says the Crown-owned railway has never recovered its investment in the line.

http://calverley.ca/article/bn12-30-northeast-coal-never-fulfilled-its-p...

epaulo13 wrote:

Kinder Morgan will be Trudeau’s Waterloo

quote:

Congratulations to the Texas oil company formed from the ashes of Enron, you really played us like a fiddle. A decision is expected in one of the court cases facing the pipeline in the next couple months. Unlike the B.C. government’s case, the Indigenous case that consultation was insufficient is considered a strong one. If that decision goes against the government, or if it doesn’t but goes against the government on appeal to the Supreme Court, the pipeline is dead. And with it somewhere between $4.5 and $12 billion of our tax dollars.

Kinder Morgan knew this. Why did our government ignore it?

Even if the courts rule in the government’s favour at every step, the Indigenous-led resistance on the ground in B.C. will intensify, and every foot of pipe will be a battle. There will be arrests, people chained to everything in sight, and the cost of building the pipeline will spiral out of control. Meanwhile, Indigenous groups across the country have committed to engage in civil disobedience against the pipeline in their own territories.

Kinder Morgan knew this. Why did our government ignore it?

Most importantly, all indications are that by the time the pipeline is built, the market for the product it transports may not be there. Certainly not at prices that make the investment worthwhile, with experts now forecasting that $50 a barrel oil is more likely than a return to $100 a barrel.

Kinder Morgan knew this. Why did our government ignore it?

Want more bad news? I got you covered. “The United Nations International Maritime Organization (IMO) recently approved new, much stiffer fuel standards for the 50,000 ocean-going vessels which currently burn low-grade, high-sulphur oil.” The new rules, in place by 2020, require no more than 0.5 per cent sulphur, a 700 per cent reduction from the current average. What does that mean for Alberta’s oil?

“Alberta bitumen will likely be a big loser, because it contains on average some 11 times more sulphur than conventional crude, and results in a high ratio of low-grade Bunker C when refined. As of 2020, according to industry reports, U.S. refinery purchases of diluted bitumen for ship fuel will begin slowing to an eventual trickle, Europe will buy none because it has the wrong refinery profile, and Asian refiners will dedicate new refineries to produce low-sulphur diesel for ship fuel.”

Kinder Morgan knew this. Why did our government ignore it?

"Exactly which Asian countries or refiners have signed long-term contracts to purchase more Alberta bitumen for decades to come?" asks journalist Paul McKay in the Energy Mix. "Exactly how much have they committed to pay per barrel delivered?" The NEB didn't ask, and the answer is no one knows.

I guess that investment in your new polling buddy, Glen P Rollins, is down the tube huh, epaulo? No apologies, no shame, just continue on spamming the site with a new BFF like nothing happened.

I think you are getting desperate to counter rising support for getting resources to market. Well, maybe not rising support but rather existing support making itself heard. Nice try with Crazy Glen, though.

Pondering wrote:

Careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Government investment in mega projects, certainly in rail transport, is a good thing. We want the government to invest in and support green infrastructure. The people of Quebec owning Hydro Quebec has been of enormous benefit to us.

Government support or promotion of specific industries is not a bad thing in and of itself.

Look no further than Sweden for a little country that could. Sweden has many industries manufacturing high tech products. What does Canada invent and manufacture to sell globally? Maple syrup?

The second reincarnation of NE coal hasn't worked out much better than the first one. Government should invest in the infrastructure and policies that allow high tech to thrive rather than attempting to pick up the pieces when they don't. 

Canada depends on resource exports because we are too timid the assume risk. We live in thrall to the big nation next door. Sweden, otoh, has designed and built cars, trucks, ships and aircraft, all uniquely Swedish. In forestry, Canada creates only a couple of jobs per cubic meter of production while Sweden creates 17. Sweden has IKEA while Canada has 2X4s.

Thanks for the clarification. Martin N. 

Indigenous Climate Action Webinar on Canada's Bailout of Kinder Morgan

https://twitter.com/EllenGabriel1/status/1002709277591658503

Socializing risk, privatizing profit and trashing Indigenous rights. What could possibly go wrong?

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Government investment in mega projects, certainly in rail transport, is a good thing. We want the government to invest in and support green infrastructure. The people of Quebec owning Hydro Quebec has been of enormous benefit to us.

Government support or promotion of specific industries is not a bad thing in and of itself.

Look no further than Sweden for a little country that could. Sweden has many industries manufacturing high tech products. What does Canada invent and manufacture to sell globally? Maple syrup?

The second reincarnation of NE coal hasn't worked out much better than the first one. Government should invest in the infrastructure and policies that allow high tech to thrive rather than attempting to pick up the pieces when they don't. 

Canada depends on resource exports because we are too timid the assume risk. We live in thrall to the big nation next door. Sweden, otoh, has designed and built cars, trucks, ships and aircraft, all uniquely Swedish. In forestry, Canada creates only a couple of jobs per cubic meter of production while Sweden creates 17. Sweden has IKEA while Canada has 2X4s.

Nicely said but how does the answer then become shipping unrefined bitumen to China. Your logic seems to be unhinged from the facts. But then most climate change deniers have extreme logic problems trying to square the circle of their justifications for the absurd.

No, My view encompasses much more than refuting the simplistic and narrow focus of the anti-pipeline agenda. If one were to assign a value to all the questions asked in ecological polls independent of a specific cumulative result, one could interpret my responses as being anti-pipeline, pro marine protection. The sad fact is that lies, damned lies and statistics work both ways. The clever melding of different objectives into a whole cloth of seamless opposition to TM will not stand.

The anti-pipeline agenda seizes on a potential marine bitumen spill only as a convenient shock trope to energize enthusiasm for their political agenda in much the same way they co-opt indigenous issues as support for their political agenda -" for the sake of the grandchildren " is is a disingenuous rallying cry that has nothing to do with the safety of our marine environment and everything to do with guilt-tripping vulnerable but naive and ill-informed dupes.

If protecting our marine environment is the agenda, why is there no focus on the debilitating effects of plastics in the oceans on our revered sea animals and shellfish? Whales and fish choking on fishnets and six pack rings, swallowing plastic bags, bivalves with high levels of plastic in them, floating islands of plastic trash, hurricane debris etc.

Not a peep from those on the pinnacle of moral superiority. No mention, much less action from virtue-signaling but no less venal politicians. If compromise is possible, I will stand among the protesters but, considering the impossible absolutism of the protest movement, led by the nose by professional grievancemongers, I am forced to side with those willing to accept the need for positive change.

Nicely said but how does the answer then become shipping unrefined bitumen to China. Your logic seems to be unhinged from the facts. But then most climate change deniers have extreme logic problems trying to square the circle of their justifications for the absurd.----------------

 

I am not a climate change denier, I'm a climate change realist. I advocate for personal responsibility in managing one's carbon footprint and installing renewables to mitigate it. As merely a humble rustic, I leave saving the planet to those ensconced on the pinnacle of moral superiority and content myself with positive contributions, however small.

Kanahus Manuel: 'Canada Does Not Own Our Secwepemc Territory'

https://twitter.com/KanahusFreedom/status/1003672306193842176

"Canada does not own our Secwepemc Territory. My lands are unceded, we will never surrender or cede our lands. We will remain UNCEDED and we will face off with KM & Canada and defend our Secwepemc Territory by any means necessary..."

She is right. Canada is wrong...

Canadian Criminal Court Jurisdiction Relative To Unceded Indian Territory  -  by Bruce Clark

https://dissidentvoice.org/2017/10/canadian-criminal-court-jurisdiction-...

'And We do further strictly enjoin and require all Persons whatever, who have either wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any Lands within the Countries above described, or upon any other Lands, which, not having been ceded to, or purchased by Us, are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith to remove themselves from such settlements...'

"Under the constitutional common law and the Indian part of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 the Indians retain two things from the pre-contact epoch. These are their possession of, and their self government on their land. These preclude non-native court jurisdiction upon unceded territory..."

Anyone arrested for 'disobeying' a BC court injunction precluding 'interference' with TransMountain, should first and foremost advise the court that as a matter of settled and binding law, Canadian courts are without lawful jurisdiction upon unceded territory and furthermore any exercise of jurisdiction will necessarily entail the commission of crimes of constitutional treason, fraud and arguably genocide.

They should 'adopt' , file and submit the article to the colonial court as their sole defence. Do not trust a lawyer to do this as they are themselves officers of the illegal crown courts sworn to uphold an illegal and illegitimate Canadian colonialism and cannot be trusted to do anything but attorn you to the fraudulent jurisdiction of the illegal and usurping court system.  The only 'rights' BC, Canada or Kinder Morgan have on unceded Secwepemc territory, are to remove themselves forthwith. That is what the law actually says and the truest, strongest basis upon which to resist the corporate Canadian invasion by the pipeline upon Indigeneous lands.