No pipelines, no tankers, no problem 3

For a second time, NEB recommends approval of Trans Mountain pipeline expansion

Canada's energy regulator has once again recommended that the federal government approve the Trans Mountain oil pipeline and tanker expansion project.

The Calgary-based National Energy Board (NEB) found that the proposed project is "justified" to find more oil markets and to create jobs, despite likely "significant" adverse environmental impacts on Southern resident killer whales, on Indigenous cultural use related to the whales and on greenhouse gas emissions.

The decision triggered renewed outrage among some First Nations representatives and environmental groups. They pledged to continue fighting the pipeline and vowed it would never be built. Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, said it’s “ludicrous” that economic interests are considered more important than killer whales.

Bills Criminalizing Pipeline Protest Arise in Statehouses Nationwide

The oil and gas industry has started its 2019 lobbying efforts with a bang.

Eight different statehouses across the nation are considering bills criminalizing protests on property owned by the the oil and gas industry which critics say could squelch pipeline protesters and others calling attention to climate change-causing infrastructure.

The bills offer steep criminal penalties for trespass onto oil and gas industry-owned private property defined as “critical infrastructure” under state law. The legal definition of “critical infrastructure,” which incorporates essentially all assets serving as the bedrock of the current economic system, has greatly expanded in the post-September 11 era. With that expansion came increasingly harsh criminal enforcement mechanisms available to prosecutors in the name of protecting national security.

It is no coincidence that the bills are rolling out simultaneously with nearly identical language, in various states. The Real News has traced these bills back to model bills emanating from two organizations, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Council of State Governments (CSG), both of which receive generous financial backing from the oil and gas industry. In turn, the organizations serve as facilitators for doling out model legislation to state legislators....

SNC-Lavalin Lawyer Iacobucci Urged To Resign As Trudeau's Trans Mountain Envoy

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/03/05/news/snc-lavalin-lawyer-iaco...

"Frank ['Mr Fix-it'] Iacobucci's name popped up a couple of times in Jody Wilson-Raybould's bombshell Feb 27 testimony before the House of Commons Justice Committee about allegations of political interference in her last months as attorney general of Canada.  

During an emergency debate about the SNC-Lavalin scandal on Feb 28, Green Party leader Elizabeth May, stood in the House of Commons to muse about Iacobucci's role in two key files it is juggling.** 'Frank Iacobucci is not a shrinking violet. He is playing an interesting role here. I wonder if my friend finds it curious in any way that SNC-Lavalin's lawyer was the choice of the prime minister to run the Indigenous consultations in the repairing of the flawed consultations in the Kinder Morgan pipeline,' she said...'And he is still playing that role, while he is also SNC-Lavalin's lawyer.'**

The UBCIC's Chief Judy Wilson said Iacobucci would ideally step down from his role leading the Trans Mountain expansion consultations, but should at least remove himself from one of the files. 'He made a mess there, we don't want him to make a mess over here..."

What 'conflict of interest'? That IS the interest. There is no conflict...

..from the coast protectors

A Year of Resistance to Trans Mountain

quote:

But instead of letting the project die a natural death, Trudeau and his ministers frantically worked to buy it outright, at a premium, with a major court case still to be settled.

Kinder Morgan's shareholders approved the $4.5 billion sale just minutes before the Federal Court of Appeal quashed the approval.

Since then our struggle has taken on a new shape. Instead of accepting the court's decision and putting an end to the ill-conceived project, Trudeau directed the NEB to "reconsider" its assessment. Sure enough, after a rushed process to include marine impacts, the NEB once again recommended that the pipeline and tanker project was in Canada's "national interest". 

Now Canadian politics is boiling over with revelations from Jody Wilson-Raybould laying bare the cosy relationship between the Canadian government and certain large corporations - it is hard to tell where SNC Lavalin begins and the Canadian government ends.

We've been saying it for years about Kinder Morgan - the federal bodies responsible for overseeing large projects are captured by industry and the highest priority of the Canadian government is to protect them - not Canadians.

As the climate crisis intensifies, the calls to action will get louder and the importance of grassroots movement work will be even more crucial. Together we will build a new world, a world where our children and grandchildren will thrive. It will not be easy. But together we can make it happen - and we WILL make it happen. 

We will not stop. We will not give up. This struggle is life or death for the planet and for our coast. It is a privilege to be on this journey with you. 

Without doubt, the anti-development types will not be preaching for "social license" any more because this construct is now working against them. As a greater segment of the population informs itself on the issues, it will be more and more difficult to gull them with disinformation and cunning stunts designed to imply that the activists are in the majority.

Soon, like epaulo above, they will be reduced to 'shooting the messenger' and running around crying : "The sky is falling". Don't be surprised to see politicians taking note of how the wind blows at election time - it is not for nothing that Trudeau bought TM and as his credibility wanes, he will become very desperate. Desperate enough to chuck the rest of his pretensions in the dustbin alongside the feminist persona and follow the direction the wind blows.

..from an email

quote:

This week, the Heiltsuk, Haida and Little Shuswap Nations will be appearing before the BC Court of Appeal in a seminal case focusing on overlapping federal, provincial and Indigenous jurisdictions to legislate environmental protections. The three First Nations will be arguing in favour of BC’s power to pass legislation to protect the province from the threat of a diluted bitumen spill - which the federal government is opposing - while emphasizing the right of First Nations to apply their own laws to federal oil projects.

The bitumen case throws another legal hurdle in the path of the Trans Mountain pipeline, currently in legal limbo after Indigenous legal challenges led to the project being quashed by the federal Court of Appeals in 2018.   Unlike most of the cases supported by RAVEN, the “bitumen reference”, as this case has become known, was brought by the BC government. Without First Nation participation,  vital Indigenous interests would have been left undefended. The case would have remained narrowly focused on the jurisdictional tug-of-war between the province and the feds.

This is why we are especially delighted that we were able to support the participation of Heiltsuk, Haida and Little Shuswap with $150K in 2018.

Acting as intervenors in existing court cases brought by governments or corporations is a powerful way for First Nations to bring Indigenous interests, concerns and perspectives before the courts without the burden of filing their own a case. Yet too often even that level of participation can be financially prohibitive for Indigenous communities.

“Interprovincial pipelines and tankers may be matters of federal concern, but the consequences of their spills are borne by local communities, and we ought to have a say about how they are regulated,” said hereditary chief Wiqvilba Wakas (Harvey Humchitt). “The Heiltsuk have been governing our territory through Indigenous laws for millennia, and we hope that the court will recognize the importance of our continued ability to do so.”

Martin N. wrote:

Here's another poll for you to spin, epaulo. The way that all these polls are pointing the same way - Canadians want pipelines and prosperity - you will be spinning yourself out of control.

The majority of Canadians (61%) say they are tired of nothing getting built in the country.

Vancouver, BC [March 12, 2019] – A significant proportion of Canadians and British Columbians are in favour of resource development projects, a new Research Co. poll conducted on behalf of LNG Canada—a liquefied natural gas project currently under construction in Kitimat, B.C.—has found.

In the online survey of representative samples, 79% of Canadians and 71% of British Columbians express support for resource development projects. In addition, 61% of respondents across the country and 51% of those located in the westernmost province agree they are “tired of nothing getting built” in Canada and British Columbia—a proportion that rises to 67% in northern B.C.

Seven-in-ten Canadians (70%) believe the “national economy will suffer if we can’t build resource projects.” In British Columbia, 63% feel this way about the possible effect on the provincial economy, including 74% of those in northern B.C.

More than half of Canadians (54%) believe the country’s reputation “is harmed by protests against resource development projects.” In British Columbia, 52% express the same sentiment about the effect of protests against resource development projects, and fewer than a quarter (23%) think it’s possible to have unanimous support for resource development projects. 

“When asked what would make them more likely to support resource development projects, a majority of British Columbians (57%) want assurances that the impact on the environment is limited,” says Mario Canseco, President of Research Co. “Other important considerations are guaranteeing that Canadians will get the first opportunity to work on the project (53%) and providing training and apprenticeship opportunities for young Canadians (46%).”

Seven-in-ten British Columbians (70%) foresee a positive economic impact from LNG Canada’s liquefied natural gas export project in Kitimat, B.C., which is scheduled to deliver its first LNG cargo before mid-next decade. Broken down by region, over half of Vancouver Island residents (56%), two thirds of Metro Vancouverites (67%) and 86% of those in northern B.C. anticipate a positive economic impact from the project.

“LNG Canada has received significant support from First Nations at the facility and along the shipping route, as well as from northern communities overall,” says Susannah Pierce, LNG Canada’s Director, External Relations. “We are committed to these supporters. A project like ours is vital to the creation of training, employment and contracting opportunities, and we’re pleased to see that British Columbians and Canadians recognize the importance of resource projects as drivers of the Canadian economy.”

The poll also revealed that at least three-in-five Canadians have a positive opinion of four energy sources: wind (80%), hydropower (76%), natural gas (69%) and geothermal (61%). Canadians are divided on oil, with 43% having positive views and 46% having a negative opinion. The lowest ranked energy source for Canadians is coal, with 24% of residents expressing a positive view. 

Three-in-five Canadians (60%) believe Canada has a responsibility to “export natural gas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) in other countries.” LNG exported from LNG Canada’s facility can displace the use of coal for power generation, reducing global GHGs by 60 to 90 mtpa, which is the equivalent of all GHGs produced in British Columbia annually.

In the online survey of representative samples, 79% of Canadians and 71% of British Columbians express support for resource development projects. In addition, 61% of respondents across the country and 51% of those located in the westernmost province agree they are “tired of nothing getting built” in Canada and British Columbia—a proportion that rises to 67% in Northern B.C.

Seven-in-ten Canadians (70%) believe the “national economy will suffer if we can’t build resource projects.” In British Columbia, 63% feel this way about the possible effect in the provincial economy, including 74% of those in northern B.C.

More than half of Canadians (54%) believe the country’s reputation “is harmed by protests against resource development projects”. In British Columbia, 52% express the same sentiment about the effect of protests against resource development projects, and fewer than a quarter (23%) think it’s possible to have unanimous support for resource development projects. 

“When asked what would make them more likely to support resource development projects, a majority of British Columbians (57%) want assurances that the impact in the environment is limited,” says Mario Canseco, President of Research Co. “Other important considerations are guaranteeing that Canadians will get the first opportunity to work on the project (53%) and providing training and apprenticeship opportunities for young Canadians (46%).”

Seven-in-ten British Columbians (70%) foresee a positive economic impact from LNG Canada’s liquefied natural gas export project in Kitimat, B.C., which is scheduled to deliver first LNG cargo mid-next decade. Broken down by region, over half of Vancouver Island residents (56%), two thirds of Metro Vancouverites (67%) and 86% of those in northern B.C. anticipate a positive economic impact from the project.

“LNG Canada has received significant support from First Nations at the facility and along the shipping route, as well as from northern communities overall,” says Susannah Pierce, LNG Canada’s Director, External Relations. “We are committed to these supporters. A project like ours is vital to the creation of training, employment and contracting opportunities, and we’re pleased to see that British Columbians and Canadians recognize the importance of resource projects as drivers of the Canadian economy.”

The poll also revealed that at least three-in-five Canadians have a positive opinion of four energy sources: wind (80%), hydropower (76%), natural gas (69%) and geothermal (61%). Canadians are divided on oil, with 43% having positive views and 46% having a negative opinion. The lowest ranked energy source for Canadians is coal, with 24% of residents expressing a positive view. 

Three-in-five Canadians (60%) believe Canada has a responsibility to “export natural gas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) in other countries.” LNG exported from LNG Canada’s facility can displace the use of coal for power generation, reducing global GHGs by 60 to 90 mtpa, which is the equivalent of all GHGs produced in British Columbia annually.”

Methodology:

Results are based on an online study conducted from February 21 to February 24, 2019, among 1,000 adults in Canada; and an online study conducted from February 16 to February 18, 2019, among 800 adults in British Columbia. The data has been statistically weighted according to Canadian census figures for age, gender and region in Canada and British Columbia. The margin of error—which measures sample variability—is +/- 3.1 percentage points for the sample of Canadians and +/- 3.5 percentage points for the sample of British Columbians, nineteen times out of twenty.

Find our full Canada data set here, our full British Columbia data set here and download the press release here. 

For more information on this poll, please contact:

Mario Canseco, President, Research Co.
[c] 778.929.0490
[e] [email protected]

LNG Canada Media Relations
[c] 604.761.5529
[e] media@lngcanada.ca

It's because the oil companies that benefit from construction of the pipeline are in collusion with the media companies in this country, the same media companies who are actively promoting the rich and well connected in this country. The people who oppose these energy developments have internet discussion sites like rabble.ca. Is it a surprise that people will support development in this context? Who do you think has the tactical advantage.

Just look at the difference between the way the yellow vests and pipeline protesters are being treated. The anti-pipeliners are attacked for simply disagreeing with constrution of the pipeline, while these yellow vesters are painted as heroic protesters defending their livelihood.

I have no trouble accepting the results of the poll because it was very general. It was not specific to bitument pipelines nor a specific project. 

It did not ask questions like

"Should the federal government have the right to force communities or provinces to accept projects that endanger their environment?"

"Should the federal government continue to subsidize fossil fuel companies?"

"Should we continue to build fossil fuel infrastructure or should we focus on renewables?

"Should we respect court decisions regarding indigenous rights?"

It's easy to get the answers you want from a poll if you frame the questions properly. 

I don't think any of Alberta's tactics are going to work. While the consititution does put interprovincial trade and cross boundry infracstructure under the pervue of the federal government it is not clear that they have the right to force a project through a province that doesn't want it. 

From general reading in the past I have come to understand that the Canadian courts prefer that the provinces and federal government reach mutual agreements and respect each other's jurisdictions. The environment was not included in the constitution and in practice both provincial and federal governments have passed environmental laws. By my understanding the courts would prefer that both federal and provincial laws be respected. 

The reference case before the courts right now is tremendously important. BC is asking if it has the right to protect it's environment from an acknowledged environmental threat. The NEB isn't saying bitumen is safe. They are saying it will cause damage to the ocean environment but that the chances of a catastrophic spill are worth the risk based on the financial benefits of the project. 

It isn't about the one pipeline. It is about the transport of dangerous substances. It sets a precedence. That is why Quebec is on the side of BC. It's about provincial rights. We are a confederation of provinces that gave up certain powers to the federal government. Environmental protection was not one of them. 

The court is being asked to decide if the federal government has the right to impose environmental risks on provinces or if provinces have the right to put limits on those risks.

Whichever way the decision goes will be big. That is why the Liberals didn't want to ask the Supreme Court. They are afraid they will get an answer they don't want. No matter what the BC court says the case will be brought to the  Supreme Court of Canada. 

Any answer might be an answer they don't want. If the decision falls in favor of BC that means TM is all but dead. If the decision falls in favor of the federal position Alberta will expect Trudeau to force construction forward by any means including army defense. 

Obviously a guess on my part but I think the courts will come down (reluctantly) on the side of the rights of provinces to protect their population and territory. To do otherwise wouldn't promote national unity it would undermine it. 

Canada works by consensus. It isn't just Quebecers that have a strong provincial identity as well as a Canadian identity. 

Alberta has taken the attitude that they have a right to put pipelines through other provinces. I don't think the courts will agree. 

Alberta has also taken the attitude that they are being victimized by the other provinces refusing to recognize that provincial concerns are real not some attempt to harm Alberta. 

One last note on the poll is that it comes after months if not years of dishonest advertisments paid for by government and industry. The people more directly impacted are not so easily fooled. 

First Nations, cities support B.C.'s plan to require permits for pipelines

First Nations and cities that have seen costly and damaging oil spills are supporting British Columbia's efforts to require permits for companies transporting hazardous substances through the province.

The B.C. Court of Appeal is hearing a reference case that asks whether the province can create such a system, which would require companies to file disaster response plans and pay for any damages.

Heiltsuk Nation Chief Marilyn Slett said a spill in her community revealed gaps in federal response. The tug Nathan E. Stewart leaked 110,000 litres of diesel fuel near Bella Bella in late 2016.

"The day the spill happened, our people were out there. They were out in their boats, they were there trying to help with any of the recovery," Slett said in an interview.

"What we noticed is there isn't room for Indigenous people and Indigenous governance within the spill response regime."

quote:

Canada says in court documents that the proposed amendments to B.C.'s Environmental Management Act must be struck down because they give the province a "veto" over such projects.

Slett said she believes that if B.C.'s proposed system had been in place when the Nathan E. Stewart sank, the recovery would be further along now. She also hopes the province's regime, if approved, will incorporate Indigenous knowledge of their territories.

"Our people know our areas. They know the tides. They know the weather patterns," she said.

City of Vancouver lawyer Susan Horne told court that the municipality supports B.C.'s proposal because it would ensure local and First Nations governments are properly resourced to respond to spills and are fully compensated for damages.

"Local governments, like the City of Vancouver, are on the front lines of emergency response for their communities," she said.

Small spill in 2015 cost $569K

The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, purchased by the federal government for $4.5 billion, would triple the capacity of the existing line from the Edmonton area to Burnaby and increase tanker traffic in Burrard Inlet seven-fold.

Horne said Vancouver borders Burrard Inlet and a diluted bitumen spill would create a toxic plume that would risk the health of anyone in close proximity and delay response until the threat had subsided.

A relatively small diesel spill in English Bay in 2015 required a response from 12 city departments and cost Vancouver more than $569,000, she said, and ship owners have not repaid the city yet.

Michelle Bradley, representing the City of Burnaby, said diluted bitumen can sink and become submerged in shorelines. It's also flammable and the city's fire chief has raised concerns about the possibility of a blaze at the Trans Mountain tank farm, she said.

Burnaby has already been affected by a spill from Trans Mountain in 2007 when a contractor struck the line and caused 224,000 litres of heavy oil to spew into a residential area, she said. The company relied extensively on Burnaby first responders, she added.

The city does not currently have the capacity to respond to a disaster from the expanded Trans Mountain project, but B.C.'s proposed system would help ensure it was ready, Bradley said.

'Local, not national' environmental damage

"The environmental damage caused by releases of hazardous substances will be local, not national," Bradley said. "The governments closest to those communities should be empowered to enact legislation to protect those communities from harm, and to exceed national norms for environmental protection."

epaulo13 wrote:

Burnaby has already been affected by a spill from Trans Mountain in 2007 when a contractor struck the line and caused 224,000 litres of heavy oil to spew into a residential area, she said. The company relied extensively on Burnaby first responders, she added.

I have said all along the oil companies are their own worst enemy. They put profits ahead of everything believing that they could off load costs and risks to communities with impunity because they are so powerful. 

I think the cost of protecting the environment through prevention, preparation, and clean-up is so high that it makes pipelines uneconomical. Insurance companies won't fully cover oil infrastructure for a reason.  If oil companies are required to pay those costs they won't proceed. 

I think BC has a really good argument. They aren't saying the pipeline can't go through. They are saying the oil companies must absorb the cost of environmental protection. 

Canada's environment department didn't think the Trans Mountain purchase was a fossil fuel subsidy

Julie Gelfand says she's never clashed with a federal department over one of her recommendations in the five years she's been Canada's environment watchdog.

On Tuesday, when the commissioner of environment and sustainable development tabled her final reports in Parliament before she leaves the position this fall, that streak ended.

Finance Canada rejected her recommendation that, in its hunt for favourable tax measures for the oil and gas industry, the department take into account evidence that integrates economic, social, and environmental sustainability on an equal basis.

"Disagreed," the department retorted. Some of those considerations, it argued, may be more "relevant" than others.

"It is the first time that a department has disagreed with one of my recommendations. Was I surprised? A little bit; it hadn't happened before," Gelfand told reporters in a press conference Tuesday.

The dispute with federal bean counters is contained in one of several audits Gelfand submitted April 2 to federal MPs and senators, on a range of issues including invasive species and water pollution from mining companies.

She also found that the federal Environment Department did not consider the Canadian government's $4.5 billion purchase of the Trans Mountain oil pipeline and expansion project in its ongoing assessment of corporate handouts to the oil and gas sector.

The pipeline purchase, completed by the Trudeau government last summer, is among a series of federal investments, including some “that were designed to increase production of fossil fuels and manage waste from oil sands production” that should have been on a list of subsidies, said Gelfand's audit.....

China has stopped buying crude oil from Western Canada after record purchase in 2018

Chinese demand for Canadian crude oil shipped through the Port of Vancouver has dried up in 2019.

David Huntley, a professor emeritus in physics at Simon Fraser University who monitors tanker traffic at Burnaby’s Westridge terminal, said that so far this year there had been only three tankers that loaded crude oil from the terminal and none went to China.

This followed a record year for China, where it bought 6.56 million barrels of crude (12 tanker loads), or almost one-third of all the crude shipped out of B.C. in 2018. According to Port of Vancouver records, China imported crude from B.C. every year between 2008 and 2018, except 2016 and 2017.

Huntley, via email, told Postmedia News “my interpretation is that a significant amount of oil was sent to China near the end of 2018 when the price was very low, and it stopped the moment the Alberta Premier curtailed production and the price returned to normal.”

On November 28, 2018, a barrel of Western Canadian Select sold for $10.29 a barrel, a huge discount on the $58.37 a barrel on May 18, 2018. Last week, a barrel of WCS sold for $53.75.

Kevin Birn, vice-president of IHS Markit in Calgary, agreed that price played a role in driving the demand for crude for Chinese refineries in the second half of 2018.

However, Birn said that securing available space on the Trans Mountain pipeline that ends at the Westridge terminal also played a role. The Canadian-government owned Trans Mountain pipeline carries a variety of petroleum products from Edmonton, with shippers bidding for space on the line.

“Everyone wants to fixate on whether it’s going to China, but it will go to Korea, it will go to Japan, to India, to California and the Gulf Coast. The shippers decide what gets pushed through the Trans Mountain pipeline by purchasing capacity on the line. They (Chinese shippers) just found a way to get (crude) capacity on the line,” Birn said.

The Westridge terminal is the westernmost point of the Trans Mountain pipeline, but half of its crude capacity is usually off-loaded at the Sumas Terminal and piped to refineries in Washington.....

I'm surprised a premier in Alberta is so ignorant that she doesn't know the difference between bitumen and natural gas not to mention lighter oils. 

Oil Spill Now Larger Than Paris Ravages Indonesian Island, 5 Dead

An oil spill in Borneo that began over the past weekend has now spread across an area greater than the city of Paris and is heading out to the open ocean, the Indonesian government said.

The spill, first reported on March 31, stems from a pipeline operated by state-owned oil firm Pertamina in the city of Balikpapan, in East Kalimantan province. A report released April 4 by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry said the slick was spreading out from Balikpapan Bay and into the Strait of Makassar, covering some 130 square kilometers (50 square miles).

Pertamina, which for days had denied responsibility for the disaster, finally admitted on April 4 that one of its pipes used for transporting crude oil was the source of the slick.

Our preliminary investigation had indicated that the oil was ship fuel, but it was only until [the evening of April 3] that we got confirmation that it was from us," Pertamina general manager Togar M.P. told reporters. "Ever since the incident was discovered, we have shut down the pipes."

The incident has been blamed for the deaths of five fishermen in a fire sparked by clean-up workers who were trying to clear the oil by burning it off the water's surface.

Some 84 acres of mangrove forests are covered in oil, the environment ministry report said. The slick is also believed to have led to the death of an endangered Irrawaddy dolphin (orcaella brevirostris), a protected species under Indonesian law, which was found washed up on the coast near the site of the spill.

Thousands of people in Balikpapan, a city of 700,000, have also complained about health problems from the toxic slick.

Authorities declared a state of emergency in the city on April 3, and warned residents not to light cigarettes in the area. They also distributed gas masks to protect against the acrid fumes and smoke.

"Dolphins have died from oil spills in Balikpapan Bay. The marine waters are polluted. Until now the impact of oil the spill can not be overcome," said Indonesian National Board for Disaster Management Sutopo Purwo Nugroho (via Google Translate).....

epaulo13 wrote:

David Suzuki: Canadian pipeline push promotes false and misleading claims

An Angus Reid poll found 58 percent of Canadians think lack of pipeline capacity is a national crisis. They can be forgiven for this. The company that owns a near monopoly on newspapers in Canada, aided by politicians and fossil fuel interests, has put significant effort into convincing them.

That the number rises to 87 percent in Alberta, with 96 percent believing that not building new pipelines would have a major impact on the Canadian economy, isn’t surprising. All mainstream newspapers there are owned by the same company, political parties across the spectrum prioritize oil and gas interests over everything, and even educational institutions like the University of Calgary have been compromised by industry influence.

When the National Post signed a 2013 agreement with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, its publisher, Douglas Kelly, said, “We will work with CAPP to amplify our energy mandate and to be a part of the solution to keep Canada competitive in the global marketplace. The National Post will undertake to leverage all means editorially, technically and creatively to further this critical conversation.”

That agreement and similar language later extended to its parent company, Postmedia, which owns most major daily newspapers in Canada, as well as many community papers.

The National Post’s opinion pages are full of climate-science denial, with few opposing viewpoints. And the Alberta government has spent $23 million on a slick, misleading ad campaign to convince people B.C. is hurting the country by opposing a pipeline project from the oilsands to Vancouver.....

uh huh. When you can't refute the facts, attack the messenger. The tide is turning against implacable activists and the response is to deny reality and fabricate conspiracy theories raising the corporate boogeyman from his rusty bed and accuse anyone disputing the climate hysteria as 'deniers'.  Countering climate alarmist misinformation is a sin?

Both pathetic and desperate. Get a life.

"This is so disturbing..."

https://twitter.com/albertarabbit/status/1122203163933548546

This appears to be significant and maybe the real reason the Liberals are postponing...... 

Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs issues stark warning to First Nations about investing in Trans Mountain pipeline system

https://www.straight.com/news/1233091/union-bc-indian-chiefs-issues-stark-warning-first-nations-about-investing-trans

Here it comes: Oil Industry 's Jason Kenney's full court press against Global Warming, the Environment and Indigenous Peoples.

John Horgan rejects Alberta premier's claim higher B.C. gas prices caused by pipeline disruption

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/jason-kenney-turn-off-taps-oil-gas-trans-mountain-1.5118519

Andrew Wilkinson’s Dishonest Gas Tax Blame Game

https://www.straight.com/news/1234991/martyn-brown-andrew-wilkinsons-dishonest-gas-tax-blame-game

B.C. premier sounds like the grown-up in the room as he responds to Jason Kenney's 'turn-off-the-taps' law

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/alberta-diary/2019/05/bc-premier-sounds-grown-room-he-responds-jason-kenneys-turn

https://www.wcel.org/blog/anti-bill-c-69-rhetoric-not-just-misleading-its-irresponsible

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5120823

NorthReport wrote:

B.C. premier sounds like the grown-up in the room as he responds to Jason Kenney's 'turn-off-the-taps' law

 

 

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/alberta-diary/2019/05/bc-premier-sounds-grown-room-he-responds-jason-kenneys-turn

I think the more interesting point in the article is his request that more refined product flow through the pipe. 

Environmentalists don't want the pipeline to go through at all, but the biggest impediment is that it is bitumen not a more refined product that is more easily cleaned up. 

I've been missing Epaulo13.  I hope he comes back soon but until then I will try to pay closer attention to oil news like this. 

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/oil-versus-renewables_ca_5d729a60e4b07521022bcb43

The report from French financial giant BNP Paribas estimates that the market price of oil will have to fall dramatically in the next decade or two, or the industry risks losing its entire ground transport customer base.

“The oil industry has never before in its history faced the kind of threat that renewable electricity in tandem with electric vehicles poses to its business model,” wrote Mark Lewis, global head of sustainability research at the bank’s asset management division.

He described his estimates as a “death toll for (gasoline).”