Oh, my!
It appears Martyn Brown has a point:
And by-the-way, that's Alberta's refineries they are talking about.
Alberta fuel shut-off proposal would negatively affect province’s 4 refineries: industry official
https://globalnews.ca/news/4150230/refiners-alberta-bc-refined-fuel/
Oops!
Alberta move to cut energy shipments expected to hit more than B.C. fuel prices
Economic damage will extend far beyond the fuel budgets of B.C. residents if Alberta passes and enacts a bill allowing it to restrict exports of oil, natural gas and refined fuels to the province as part of its ongoing pipeline dispute, observers say.
The Bill 12 legislation and the trade war escalation it might spark would damage Alberta and Canadian businesses and citizens as well as those in British Columbia, warned Greg D’Avignon, CEO of the Business Council of B.C.
“By punishing British Columbia because of the actions of the government of the day — while it might feel good and I completely understand it — it actually has consequences people aren’t thinking about for the citizens of Alberta and our country as a whole,” he said Tuesday.
http://business.financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/alberta-move-to-cut-f...
From the same article in post #199
Is this just profit-taking on the part of the oil companies?
Absolutely.
What we've got here is a classic situation of predatory or inappropriate pricing because the companies know what the markets here will bear.
We are often charged more than costs and a normal return on profit and transportation would suggest.
Consumers have to take action. We have to vote with our feet.
You are correct in saying that a pipeline will increase prices in Canada. Any supply exported shortens supply in Canada so that is clear. It also means the product designed for export can be the focus so not only will there be a reduction overall but the product will be the one designed for the outside market. This is why oil companies will not sue. They want this pipeline and any pressure tactic they take now will result in profit later. Also consider the other article I posted: Don Pittis argues, correctly that a government investment in the pipeline is a direct carbon subsidy. If you are in that business you have to like it.
I agree Sean, and why Trudeau really does need to give his head a shake, or he might end up falling flat on his face. Canada's sycophant mainstream press will only carry him so far.
Blow up their phones: No Kinder Morgan bailout
https://act.leadnow.ca/blow-up-their-phones-no-kinder-morgan-bailout/
Trudeau’s cynical politics caught him in his own Trans Mountain trap
It should have been perfectly clear that Trans Mountain would face vastly more strident opposition than Northern Gateway or Energy East
http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/gwyn-morgan-trudeaus-cynical-p...
..so what are some implications of governments captured by industry? i mean besides the loss of democracy.
..one is that it can happen to any government no matter the party stripe. we can see this with notley but we can also see this with horgan. he may be playing the hero re the pipeline but his government has been captured by lng just like the previous liberal gov. opposing the pipeline is good politics that will get him votes if people don’t look to closely.
..another implication is that when confronted by the industry governments cave and don’t turn to the people for support. they pretend that it’s for everyone’s greater good no matter how ridiculous. that is when it comes to a project like the tarsands.
..and of course there is the indigenous and the environment issues that can only worsen. so what to do? why we are in this mess is because of how capitalism works in governance and economics. why we are in this mess because that governance is controlled and almost impossible for an anti capitalist party to rise to a position of power. and if they do they are quickly crushed by global elites.
..in other words we have no alternatives..not the ones that mean real change . except for the grass root struggles that are happening in bc, in que, with indigenous folk and in other places all over the globe. ignore this fact at your own peril.
The Vancouver Economic Commission (VEC) reiterates that the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion is not worth the risk
VEC CALLS FOR STRONGER POLICY FRAMEWORK TO ACCELERATE CLEAN ENERGY INVESTMENTS
http://www.vancouvereconomic.com/blog/vecs_take/trans-mountain-pipeline-...
Bingo!
Kinder Morgan's pipeline project is safe? Show me the science
2 of 2
I’m relieved and delighted that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has science on his side in the debate over the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion. That’s fantastic news.
So show me the science.
One of Trudeau’s many promises when he ran for office was that, unlike in the dark ages of the Harper regime, the enlightened Liberals would base all decisions on scientific evidence.
So, of course Trudeau attacked the B.C. government for having the audacity to propose research that the federal government scrupulously avoided during its rush to green-light the pipeline expansion—which would result in the extinction of the southern resident orcas, at least according to all the scientists I’ve spoken to.
The 2014 National Energy Board report on the KM expansion states: “the Board finds that the operation of Project-related marine vessels is likely to result in significant adverse effects to the Southern resident killer whale.”
Two years ago, when there were 83 southern resident orcas, I asked Canadian and American orca experts if a population this small could survive “significant adverse effects.” Everyone gave the exact same answer: absolutely not. I can’t imagine the answer has changed now that the population of iconic orcas has dropped to 76.
One of Trudeau’s other promises was to unmuzzle Canada’s scientists and allow them to speak up about important scientific issues. Fantastic.
Where’s the scientist who wants to speak up and argue that this increased tanker traffic would not result in the extinction of the irreplaceable cetacean community that markets B.C. to the world. Anyone? Bueller?
Ben Stein made the phrase "anyone, anyone?" famous in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.
In 2016, Trudeau sent out a panel to consult B.C. communities about the Kinder Morgan expansion as part of an elaborate and expensive dog-and-pony show. When I spoke out about the impact the pipeline expansion would have on the orcas, I kept encountering activists who were thrilled that no pipeline opponents had shown up.
I suspected there was something fishy about the absence of anyone from Kinder Morgan telling us bitumen would be perfectly safe on our breakfast cereal. It seemed to me there was only one reason Kinder Morgan wouldn’t send spin doctors to present the pro-pipeline perspective: the fix was in.
Trudeau recently confirmed the pipeline was promised to Alberta premier Rachel Notley in exchange for Alberta signing off on a carbon tax long before he sent out this panel to do public relations. Trudeau confessed. The fix was in.
Science was never going to factor into this decision. Whatever the science said, Trudeau was more interested in supporting Alberta’s oil industry than the safety of B.C.’s orcas or oceans.
https://www.straight.com/news/1059286/mark-leiren-young-kinder-morgans-p...
Pipeline Spills 290,000 Litres of Crude Oil Emulsion in Northern Alberta
https://www.desmog.ca/2018/04/17/pipeline-spills-290-000-litres-crude-oi...
Alexandre Boulerice said on CBC even if the Supreme Court sides with the federal government, the federal NDP would still not support the pipeline because First Nations have not been consulted properly.
How Trudeau handles the Kinder Morgan file will decide his fate at the next election? How do you think he is doing so far?
dp
..more details on captured governments
On Energy & First Nations, politicians want to have their cake and eat it too
Canada can fight climate change and build more climate-ravaging pipelines.
First Nations’ rights should be respected – just not at the expense of these pipelines, dams and other major projects they oppose. Got it?
It’s hard to fathom, but these are the positions of our provincial and federal leaders. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
quote:
The latest to disappoint First Nations
On the provincial stage, in recent years, both Alberta and BC have also turfed long-running right-wing governments – in their case for the NDP (and BC Greens). In BC, John Horgan campaigned on clean energy jobs and a vow to fight Kinder Morgan, nebulous though it was. He also echoed Trudeau in supporting UNDRIP, and has since doubled down on his support for First Nations and the environment in his recent throne speech.
But where the rubber meets the road, it’s been a different story.
In announcing his controversial, factually-challenged decision to continue with Site C Dam, Horgan offered, “I’m not the first leader to stand before you and disappoint Indigenous people.” Aside from being one of the great understatements post-contact, it showed how weak his resolve really was. He might as well have said to First Nations, “I have your back…as long as it costs me nothing.”
The Horgan cabinet ministers most directly connected to the Site C decision had essentially vowed on the campaign trail to pull the plug on the project. I say “essentially” because most left themselves a millimetre of wiggle room for insurance. Lana Popham, now agriculture minister, told a Victoria crowd, “In my view, we’re nine seats away from being able to stop Site C.”
Michelle Mungall, now minister of energy and mines, declared, “…if we’re government, then our plan is to go through the B.C. Utilities Commission and we will work to end Site C…Our desire is to stop the Site C dam.”
George Heyman, now environment minister, told Treaty 8 First Nations and citizens at the Paddle for the Peace, “The dam project is wrong on every count because of its negative impact on agriculture, the environment, First Nations, clean energy commitments, economics, and the promise of jobs”.
Is it any wonder so many First Nations and British Columbians feel betrayed by these very same people’s decision to carry on with Site C?
Alberta, the oil deep state
On the other side of the Rockies, the bar was admittedly much lower, even for a new NDP government. First Nations have never really factored into provincial decision-making there and few expected the NDP to shut down the bitumen sands. But Notley did run as a fresh face for Alberta politics, promising to tackle her province’s unfair oil and gas royalties. She even brought in a climate plan that included a provincial carbon tax and a promise to phase out coal-fired electricity by 2030.
In every meaningful way though, Notley has stayed the course of her Conservative predecessors. The royalty hike was soon kiboshed. Her provincial carbon tax is too low to accomplish anything and she’ll only buy into a bigger national tax if she gets her pipelines. Pro-industry voices have come to her defence, arguing it’s still technically possible to meet Canada’s climate commitments while adding new pipelines. Can we at least agree they don’t help?
Unfortunately the governmental financial process didn't allow the current BC government to cancel site C without incurring huge overall financial difficulties. It was their desire to stop Site C but they couldn't. They are not happy about it. You need to be directing your frustration with the people that actually put BC into this Site C mess in the first place: The BC Liberals
Unfortunately the governmental financial process didn't allow the current BC government to cancel site C without incurring huge overall financial difficulties. It was their desire to stop Site C but they couldn't. They are not happy about it. You need to be directing your frustration with the people that actually put BC into this Site C mess in the first place: The BC Liberals
..following through with site c is where the huge accumulation of debt will occurr. the ndp gov needed site c to power the lng industry that captured the ndp as well as the liberals. the deal the horgan gov made with lng re site c is a reduced power rate that is below the cost. the people of bc will have to pay for that subsidy. the decision to follow though on site c is as gillis pointed out factually-challenged.
Actually that is incorrect. If Site C had been cancelled they would have had to bring the debt onto the governments books, our credit rating would have been lowered, and our hydro bills would have skyrocketed. The BC NDP didn't want to go ahead with it, but they had little choice.
Actually that is incorrect. If Site C had been cancelled they would have had to bring the debt onto the governments books, our credit rating would have been lowered, and our hydro bills would have skyrocketed. The BC NDP didn't want to go ahead with it, but they had little choice.
Little choice? They could have opted for a lower credit rating and higher hydro bills.
I guess they thought doing the right thing environmentally wasn't worth the economic sacrifice. Fair enough, but that's the same sort of supposedly amoral calculations that environmentalists, including many on this very forum, always lambaste governments for making.
Support for Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion grows in B.C
http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/support-for-kinder-morgan-pipeli...
Trans Mountain pipeline is not needed
But Trans Mountain has a big disadvantage: It has a much higher risk factor than the other projects because it cuts through the middle of Canada’s third-largest metropolis and requires tankers that will put B.C.’s coast at risk. The risk of a port spill is 77 per cent, and the median risk of a tanker spill is 56 per cent.
Trans Mountain will also increase gas prices in B.C. by more than doubling the toll on the existing pipeline than transports gas and oil to the B.C. market to help subsidize the new pipeline.
Enbridge Line 3 and Keystone XL have a much lower environmental risk because they connect to the world market price in the U.S. Gulf without using tankers.
Therefore, it is possible to meet Alberta’s need to get its oil to world markets and protect B.C.’s coast by using the alternative pipeline projects.
Add to this a concerted effort by Alberta to get more value for its oil by upgrading it into a refined product instead of shipping it out as raw bitumen and strengthening our climate change policies, and we have the elements of a compromise that comes close to meeting everyone’s interest than pushing through with Trans Mountain.
Why then is the prime minister doubling down to subsidize Trans Mountain when there are more palatable alternatives?
Justin Trudeau points to the need to protect Canada’s international reputation and the authority of the federal government to deliver on its decisions. Egos are no doubt also at stake.
While there is merit to the prime minister’s argument, it needs to be balanced against his own statements that the review process that led to the approval of Trans Mountain was deficient and his commitment to First Nations reconciliation.
And it has to be balanced against the harm to Canada’s reputation that will come from the massive protests and arrests and the reopening of the constitutional discord with Quebec and others that will ensue if he continues to push the building of Trans Mountain in the face of escalating opposition.
The federal government no doubt is facing a tough dilemma. But doubling down on Trans Mountain by using taxpayer funds to subsidize one company at the expense of its Canadian competitors and risking a major conflict that will do irreparable damage to Canada’s reputation is a risky course.
Maybe it’s time for the federal government to reconsider other options and let Kinder Morgan make good on its ultimatum to shelve Trans Mountain. Like most compromises, this will not make everyone happy, but it may come closer to meeting everyone’s objectives than the current option of subsidizing a controversial American owned pipeline.
http://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/thomas-gunton-trans-mountain-pipel...
Thomas Gunton wrote:
Enbridge Line 3 and Keystone XL have a much lower environmental risk because they connect to the world market price in the U.S. Gulf without using tankers.
Okay, so... hooray for Keystone?
As an oil-producing country, Canada is sure messed up
https://ipolitics.ca/2018/04/17/as-an-oil-producing-country-canada-is-su...
The West Coast is still dealing with the Exxon Valdez disaster that occured in 1989, that is why "world class oil spill response" means zilch to people who live on Canada's West Coast.
https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/23/opinion/holleman-exxon-valdez-anniversary...
Thomas Gunton wrote:
Enbridge Line 3 and Keystone XL have a much lower environmental risk because they connect to the world market price in the U.S. Gulf without using tankers.
Okay, so... hooray for Keystone?
Actually that is incorrect. If Site C had been cancelled they would have had to bring the debt onto the governments books, our credit rating would have been lowered, and our hydro bills would have skyrocketed. The BC NDP didn't want to go ahead with it, but they had little choice.
..loosing 3 to 4 billion on a project that is not needed (except for lng) that will cost 9+ billion makes good sense.
..from jan/18
quote:
First things first, this decision does deep harm to the prospects for reconciliation with Indigenous people. It is fundamentally at odds with the government’s stated commitment—affirmed in the NDP-Green Agreement and in the mandate letters of each minister—to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Fundamental to UNDRIP is the duty to secure consent before engaging in major projects that impact the land and title of First Nations people. Achieving that consent should be embedded in our decision-making process. And yet in this case it is absent.
Economic rationale doesn’t hold water
quote:
Granted, the prospect of spending $3 to $4 billion and having nothing to show for it hurts.
But the government went further, stating that absorbing such a bill would put its progressive economic and social agenda at risk. Some ministers expressed the view that termination costs would threaten B.C.’s Triple-A credit rating and would consequently drive up our debt-service costs. Minister Michelle Mungall, in an email sent to those who wrote to her about Site C, stated, “To do anything but move forward would require British Columbians to take on $4 billion in debt that would have to result in massive cuts to the services people count on us to deliver. After witnessing the legacy of BC Liberal cuts, I can’t allow that to happen again” (emphasis mine).
This line of argument may sound compelling. But on closer inspection, it is not at all convincing.
Had the costs of termination remained on B.C. Hydro’s books, this would indeed have resulted in an increase in Hydro rates, but not to the degree stated by the government. And proceeding with Site C will also result in increases in Hydro rates down the road (quite possibly more so).
Given that the decision to green-light Site C was politically driven by the previous government, my view is that the costs of terminating the project should not have been borne by B.C. Hydro, but rather by the provincial government as a whole (as it seems the government considered). Some may say this makes no difference—taxpayers and ratepayers are one and the same after all. But it does make a difference. As the CCPA has noted in past research, Hydro rates are regressive—they impact lower-income households harder than upper-income ones. In contrast, provincial government debt is serviced from overall taxes, which are mildly progressive now that the new government has brought in an upper-income tax bracket and is phasing out MSP premiums. With further fair tax reform, the costs would be even more fairly distributed.
quote:
Would taking on $3 to $4 billion in termination debt, with no asset to show for it, squeeze out the rest of the government’s agenda and potentially erode B.C.’s credit rating with the consequence of driving up debt interest costs? This seems highly unlikely.
At today’s interest rates, $4 billion in debt would result in additional interest costs of at most $150 million a year. That’s not insignificant. But neither is it enough to derail a government’s agenda: $150 million is less than the current surplus. And for context: it is 0.3 percent of the province’s $50-billion annual budget.
Site C is moving ahead.
Unfortunately Kinder Morgan will probably be moving ahead as well regardless of the BC NDP government's efforts to stop it.
B.C. to file reference case in fight against Trans Mountain pipeline project
Attorney general says filing will be made by the end of the month
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-reference-case-pipelin...
Site C is moving ahead.
Unfortunately Kinder Morgan will probably be moving ahead as well regardless of the BC NDP government's efforts to stop it.
I don't get that from the article. They are filing at the provincial court of appeal and if they don't like the answer they have the option of going to the Supreme Court. That won't be done by May 31st.
There are two indigenous court cases still in progress.
There are likely thousands of protesters willing to get arrested.
Pointless poll:
https://globalnews.ca/news/4151592/support-for-the-trans-mountain-expans...
The Angus Reid Institute conducted the online survey on April 16 and 17 among a representative randomized sample of 2,125 Canadian adults who are members of the Angus Reid Forum. For comparison purposes only, a probability sample of this size with this sample plan would carry a margin of error of +/- 3.0 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
If it were a randomized survey, which it isn't. Those must be the same people who answered the polls putting the Conservatives in first place. It's propaganda.
Support for Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion grows in B.C
http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/support-for-kinder-morgan-pipeli...
That link tells part of the story:
the Angus Reid Institute has found that support in B.C. for the project is up to 54 per cent, a considerable jump from the 48 per cent in a similar survey conducted in February. This support runs through all part of the province, with 50 per cent of Metro Vancouver in favour, 54 per cent on Vancouver Island and 60 per cent of respondents in the rest of B.C.
But there's also more information from the poll not included in that link about how Canadians as a whole feel. Quote:
Nationally, more Canadians said they were losing overall patience with the B.C. government's delay tactics — two in three said B.C. is wrong to try to stop the pipeline from moving forward.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trans-mountain-pipeline-s...
Polls measure one thing: the temporary impact of nonstop propaganda by the rich via their servile politicians and bootlicking media.
I'll pay attention to polls the day they let Canadians actually, like, vote on stuff and make decisions. Via referendum. Like, pipelines. Then, people can live with the consequences of their decisions.
Until then, I will call bullshit on polls.
I have a poll saying that 2/3 of Albertans would rather join the communist party than see Trans Mountain proceed. Hang on, I'll find the link here somewhere...
Why would anyone be surprised by the Angus Reid polling results after a full court press by Trudeau, Notley, even Saskatchewan, Canada's business community and their supportive mainstream press?
BC will made their legal opposition known by the end of this month. There already are some first Nations lawsuits, so after the end of April, it will be in the hands of the Courts, and perhaps some additional protests. Kinder Morgan must be laughing how they have suckered Canada so far at least.
The West Coast is still dealing with the Exxon Valdez disaster that occured in 1989, that is why "world class oil spill response" means zilch to people who live on Canada's West Coast.
https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/23/opinion/holleman-exxon-valdez-anniversary...
Thomas Gunton wrote:
Enbridge Line 3 and Keystone XL have a much lower environmental risk because they connect to the world market price in the U.S. Gulf without using tankers.
Okay, so... hooray for Keystone?
Sure. But that means we should support Keystone?
Maybe it's time to leave all that gunk in the ground so Canada could at least make some kind of attempt towards living up to its climate change commitments.
I feel sorry for Albertans. Compared to Norway, basically no heritage fund, all these left over wells that will be polluting Alberta's environment for the next few hundred years, and no one seriously moving towards making the oil and gas industry clean up their stinkin' mess.
Compared to Norway
I'm just curious here, but does Norway sell oil under the contractual understanding that it will never be refined or burned?
Or else why is their sale of oil on the world market somehow laudable?
Compared to NorwayI'm just curious here, but does Norway sell oil under the contractual understanding that it will never be refined or burned?
Or else why is their sale of oil on the world market somehow laudable?
No one is saying it's laudable. They are saying the country has a massive fund they built up instead of wasting it on tax breaks.
Angus Reid also said the Conservatives were in first place by a lot.
This was an online survey of members of the Angus Reid Forum who get entered in draws for prizes for answering the survey.
The B.C. numbers make no sense. What Canadians think doesn't matter. It is first a legal issue. Several cases are before the courts. If and when all legal hurdles are crossed there will still be the protesters to contend with. The crowd is still small because construction hasn't begun on the pipeline yet. Once it does protesters will converge. First Nations warriors and elders will show up from across Canada. That will be the final showdown and it will be televised. Imprisoning hundreds of First Nations elders trying to protect unceded territory would be a massive blackeye to Canada. I don't know how much that will matter to Trudeau or how it will impact Canadians but it definitely wouldn't be good.
The polls, which I think are skewed anyway, don't tell the whole story. People against the pipeline feel much more strongly about it than those who support it. Much of the support is casual and based on superficial knowledge. They don't get out and demonstrate. Heavy-handedness on the part of the government could easily turn the tide on public thinking.
..alta reduced the royalties under the ndp. and reduced the amount the oil industry puts into a cleanup fund. for sure norway made a better deal for it's people than canada has. then there's the huge dumping in of money from the feds.
..i remember when hugo chavez came into power. the industry took 90% of the wealth and the country got 10%. he flipped that percentage around. most of the industry remained. they still made profits.
There are parts of Canada's national interest that Trudeau didn't talk about
The Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion conflict reveals a much larger crisis than the “constitutional” or “investor confidence” crises constructed by the projects’ proponents. The conflict reveals a profound failure of leadership from both levels of government, but most of all, from the prime minister, in response to the true crises facing this country.
The April 15 statement of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirms that he has failed to grasp both the nature of Indigenous movements in this country today as well as the depth of the climate change crisis.
Trudeau speaks of oil industry jobs & “national prospects” as if there is no way to provide employment and income security apart from subsidizing the oil industry, putting ecosystems at ever greater risk, provoking deeper conflict with First Nations.
When Trudeau and Alberta Premier Rachel Notley speak of the “national interest” they do not speak about reducing greenhouse gas emissions or decolonization. They do not speak of climate change’s existential threats to communities across the country or the incalculable costs of climate change for future generations. Decolonization is not mentioned as a process that is central to Canadians’ national interest.
Our political leaders appear to be incapable of envisaging alternatives to the current path of dependence on carbon extraction and exports for revenue and employment. In lieu of seeking national cooperation on a plan to help Alberta phase out the oilsands while sustaining the income security and the social services its citizens need, the federal government chooses to entrench the economic and environmental status quo.
The prime minister speaks of oil industry jobs and “national prospects” as if there is no way to provide employment and income security apart from subsidizing the oil industry, putting ecosystems at ever greater risk, provoking deeper conflict with First Nations, and increasing national greenhouse gas emissions.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/04/16/opinion/there-are-parts-cana...
The Angus Reid poll about KM is irrelevant as it will be up to the Courts to decide. But I do have one question: if Trudeau and Notley are so sure of their position why are they not going to the SCC for a ruling. And the answer is: obviously Ottawa and Alberta are not sure of their position!
Compared to NorwayI'm just curious here, but does Norway sell oil under the contractual understanding that it will never be refined or burned?
Or else why is their sale of oil on the world market somehow laudable?
No one is saying it's laudable. They are saying the country has a massive fund they built up instead of wasting it on tax breaks.
But if oil is so awful that it should be kept in the ground(as in North Report's first paragraph), what's the point of criticizing one oil producer for being less economically prudent than another(as in North Report's second paragraph)? It's like saying that pimping is a disgusting misogynistic activity, and then lamenting that Bob The Pimp is doing a worse job of saving for his retirement than Mike The Pimp.
Angus Reid also said the Conservatives were in first place by a lot.
This was an online survey of members of the Angus Reid Forum who get entered in draws for prizes for answering the survey.
The B.C. numbers make no sense. What Canadians think doesn't matter. It is first a legal issue. Several cases are before the courts. If and when all legal hurdles are crossed there will still be the protesters to contend with. The crowd is still small because construction hasn't begun on the pipeline yet. Once it does protesters will converge. First Nations warriors and elders will show up from across Canada. That will be the final showdown and it will be televised. Imprisoning hundreds of First Nations elders trying to protect unceded territory would be a massive blackeye to Canada. I don't know how much that will matter to Trudeau or how it will impact Canadians but it definitely wouldn't be good.
The polls, which I think are skewed anyway, don't tell the whole story. People against the pipeline feel much more strongly about it than those who support it. Much of the support is casual and based on superficial knowledge. They don't get out and demonstrate. Heavy-handedness on the part of the government could easily turn the tide on public thinking.
I'm sorry, but did you just dismiss a poll with results you don't like, proclaim "What Canadians think doesn't matter", and then proceed to tell us what you think?
Hypocrisy (& arrogance), thy name is...
I agree that there should be more focus on renewable energy (and in fact Alberta is one of the country's leaders when it comes to wind power). It is worth remembering though that this isn't actually about Canada's energy needs. It is about scraping resources out of the ground and shipping it offshore for profit. And considering the amount of energy required to process bitumen, it is a net drain for us. So while it is good as an industry alternative, it isn't like we need to replace the tar sands with anything else, and what they are proposing is an expansion.
Aside from some poor royalty rates, and the mess left over, we don't really get much out of the deal. So in that sense, cancelling it and doing nothing at all would be a benefit.
How stupid can Canadians be!!!
Pipeline Expansion: U.S. Refineries Win, Canadians Lose
Forget the talk about Asian markets; Kinder Morgan will enrich U.S. companies.
The big winners in a Trans Mountain pipeline expansion will be refineries like this one in Anacortes, Wash. Photo by RVWithTito.com, Creative Commons licensed.
They say the first casualty of war is truth, and the escalating pipeline battle between B.C. and Alberta seems no exception. Canadians have been repeatedly told the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion will open up lucrative new overseas markets for unprocessed bitumen. This is nonsense.
Tankers loaded with crude from the existing pipeline have been leaving Vancouver for years and virtually all of these shipments have been bound for refineries in the U.S. Several of these plants are just across the border in Washington State and also receive Alberta crude through a connection from the Trans Mountain pipeline to Puget Sound.
Unprocessed Canadian resources are then upgraded at some of the most profitable refining margins in the world and sold back to local captured markets at a steep markup. Is this the national interest that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Trudeau speaks so urgently of?
The Port of Vancouver recently posted their cargo statistics for 2017, shedding more light on the enduring myth of eager Asian markets for Alberta bitumen.
In 2017, 1,767,672 tonnes of crude petroleum were shipped from Vancouver, with 1,767,592 bound for the U.S. - or 99.99 percent. The remaining 80 tonnes were exported to China with an approximate market value of less than $40,000. If Asian markets will bring higher prices, why aren’t companies shipping crude to them now? It seems Asia is unlikely to bring billions in prosperity to Albertans anytime soon.
The Tyee is supported by readers like you
Join us and grow independent media in Canada
Equally illuminating was the inbound cargo figures from the United States. Last year the U.S. shipped back about half the export crude tonnage in form of refined oil products, including 456,816 tonnes of aviation fuel, 374,980 tonnes of gasoline and 85,143 tonnes of diesel. Based on current market prices, these products had a pre-tax value of over $1 billion.
In comparison, crude exports to the U.S. of 1,767,672 tonnes or 13 million barrels were worth about $600 million, meaning that imported refined petroleum was worth some three times as much per tonne.
This Canadian resource myopia is a windfall for the five refineries across the border in Washington State, particularly the two owned by Shell and BP tooled up to refine discounted Alberta bitumen and connected to the existing Trans Mountain pipeline that crosses the border at Sumas. Over half of Trans Mountain shipments in 2017 went directly to these U.S. facilities, with additional marine shipments by tanker from Vancouver.
U.S. west coast refineries are among the most profitable in the world due to a relatively captive market and lack of competition. Washington State remains unconnected to Midwest pipeline networks and is a long expensive trip for tankers from the Gulf Coast.
Much of the feedstock has historically been supplied from the Alaskan North Slope or California oil fields, both now in steep decline. The slack has since been taken up by fracked Bakken crude supplied by rail and, increasingly, by Alberta crude supplied either directly by the Trans Mountain pipeline spur to Washington State or by tankers outbound from Vancouver.
How badly is Canada missing out by not refining our own oil? The oil industry has a colourful term called the crack spread to describe the profit margin for refineries between buying crude and selling refined products.
Washington refineries buying Alberta bitumen have some of the largest profit margins in the world - up to $45 US per barrel in 2013. Not surprisingly, Vancouver also has some of the highest retail gasoline prices in North America.
Little wonder some interests are so keen on seeing the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. According to a recent market research paper bluntly titled Pacific Northwest Refineries: Cheap Crude and a Captive Market “Both Shell and BP were in a strong position to benefit from bargain-priced heavy Canadian crude that the other refiners cannot process in significant quantities due to lack of investment in coking units… If the Trans Mountain pipeline is expanded in 2019 it will provide considerable opportunity to upgrade or expand Puget Sound refineries.”
Using the more conservative crack spread of $24 per barrel in 2016, Trans Mountain will create massive potential profits for west coast refiners. With an eventual capacity of 890,000 barrels per day, U.S. refineries could pocket $7.8 billion US per year adding value to Canadian crude that our prime minister seems eager to export unprocessed.
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/04/19/Pipeline-Expansion-Refineries-Win-...
Trudeau’s Smoke and Mirrors on Carbon Tax and Pipeline
Claims that increasing oilsands production will lead to lower emissions simply false.
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/04/04/Trudeau-Pipeline-Smoke-Mirrors/
