Harper takes over 'energy projects' decisions

[jacee]

Hidden in the budget, Harper gives himself the power to make unilateral decisions about major energy projects like the Northern Gateway pipeline, overriding the National Energy Board's review process.

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/canada/politics/article/1166541--federal-budget-2012-details-show-how-canadian-pm-stephen-harper-changing-government

Among the emerging details, one of the most striking is Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s move to quietly give himself the power to approve major energy projects ike the Northern Gateway pipeline, even f regulatory bodies turn them down on environmental grounds. Buried in the fine print of the natural resource strategy first mooted in the budget, it says the Conservatives will“establish clearer accountability for decisions on major pipeline projects in the national interest by giving government authority to make the ‘go/no go’ decisions, based on the recommendations of the National Energy Board (NEB).”

To environmentalists and aboriginal people worried about supertank

picking up tarsands crude from the planned Northern Gateway pipeline, Harper’s surprise decision to acquire the power to override the 53-year-old, ndependent NEB is alarming.

Harper has already declared the proposed oil pipeline through the Rockies to Kitimat on the B.C. coast a matter of nationa nterest, and the government is streamlining the NEB hearings on Northern Gateway.

“They’ve lost all pretense of having any sense of responsibility to future generations or to environmental protection at all,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. “I’m watching the Harper government undo decades of work to have a clear process that fulfils federal constitutional responsibilities for proper environmental review."

So Harper wants to play dirty.

Fine.

He's just guaranteed major protest interference with pipeline builds.

'The man' thinks his unilateral decision will be the end of the story?

'The man' fails to understand the impact of his one-man authoritarian 'edicts' on Canadians, and the result will be exactly the opposite of his intentions. Far from being intimidated by his power grab, instead it will be the catalyst for strong action.

People are cooperating with the review process and protests are on hold for that process. However, this will change matters: If Harper is undermining the process and has no intention of respecting the results, why should anyone?

He makes his own bed ...

Edited April 24, 2012 by jacee

[Shady]

Among the emerging details, one of the most striking is Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s move to quietly give himself the power to approve major energy projects ike the Northern Gateway pipeline, even f regulatory bodies turn them down on environmental grounds.

Exellent. These so-called regulatory bodies are useless. They take forever, and usually kill projects because of some stupid beetle. We need more energy in Canada, and we need less expensive energy in Canada. We also need more jobs in Canada. These energy projects provide all 3. Kudos to Mr. Harper!

[cybercoma]

Exellent. These so-called regulatory bodies are useless. They take forever, and usually kill projects because of some stupid beetle. We need more energy in Canada, and we need less expensive energy in Canada. We also need more jobs in Canada. These energy projects provide all 3. Kudos to Mr. Harper!

Interesting. So you're all about regulating women's bodies (see below), but not the environment that we all share. I guess you're not one for liberty at all, are you?

Complete nonsense. It doesn't mean that at all. Perhaps to you. Keeping a practice legal doesn't mean it's immune to any sort of regulation. Free speech is a right too, but we have regulations concerning that in certain situations.

[cybercoma]

Hidden in the budget, Harper gives himself the power to make unilateral decisions about major energy projects like the Northern Gateway pipeline, overriding the National Energy Board's review process.

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/canada/politics/article/1166541--federal-budget-2012-details-show-how-canadian-pm-stephen-harper-changing-government

I didn't read the article yet, but where the hell is the opposition on this. I'm seriously disappointed in Mulcair and the NDP.

[jacee]

Exellent. These so-called regulatory bodies are useless. They take forever, and usually kill projects because of some stupid beetle. We need more energy in Canada, and we need less expensive energy in Canada. We also need more jobs in Canada. These energy projects provide all 3. Kudos to Mr. Harper!

Hold your kudos: It's not over yet!

Do you naively assume people will tolerate this?

The opposition will only get more militant.

Stephen Harper's push for pipelines likely to backfire

What I really don’t understand is the Conservatives’ failure to appreciate the political risks in trying to push these projects through. While it may be deemed radical for a Conservative from Alberta to be opposed to the pipelines, opposition in B.C., especially to increased tanker traffic, sits squarely in the middle of the road, cutting across all party lines.

“Radical” here more reasonably represents the people who are vowing to stop the pipeline by any means necessary. If British Columbians believe they have been given a fair hearing and lost fairly, there won’t be much tolerance for llegal acts. But if the common experience of British Columbians is to feel we are being bulldozed by Ottawa, all bets are off. cmcinnes@vancouversun.

And Harper's vulnerable in BC:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/89379-nothing-conservative-about-harper-when-it-comes-to-oil

Still, nixing the powers of a public board feels a little rash and it could carry significant political risks. And since the oil produced in Alberta has to cross British Columbia to get to Asian markets, it’s in B.C. where the potential risks arise.

Currently, the Tories hold 21 of 36 seats in B.C. and six more are available in the next election. It also has a militant and well-organized environmental movement So you know the pipelines and oilsands will become key election issues.

This is shaping up to be a confrontation between Alberta and BC.

I would go further than the op-ed above, and say that if the issue heats up before the next election, we may see some BC Cons cross the floor and bring down Harper.

Edited April 24, 2012 by jacee

[jacee]

I didn't read the article yet, but where the hell is the opposition on this. I'm seriously disappointed in Mulcair and the NDP.

I think it's just coming to light now.

Put your faith in people, not politicians. Less disappointing.

[eyeball]

This is shaping up to be a confrontation between Alberta and BC.

As it should be. The chutzpah of insisting Canada's hands remain off Alberta's oil wealth while Alberta is free to walk all over anyone they need to cash in that wealth is a little disturbing.

I've also never bought into the idea that BC and Alberta would remain united in the event of western separation from Canada. That said I'd be looking to hive Vancouver Island off BC so what the rest of BC does is their business.

[mentalfloss]

Interesting. So you're all about regulating women's bodies (see below), but not the environment that we all share.

He's all about the new Tory headline.

[jacee]

As it should be. The chutzpah of insisting Canada's hands remain off Alberta's oil wealth while Alberta is free to walk all over anyone they need to cash in that wealth is a little disturbing.

I've also never bought into the idea that BC and Alberta would remain united in the event of western separation from Canada. That said I'd be looking to hive Vancouver Island off BC so what the rest of BC does is their business.

Canada may be better positioned to withstand high fuel prices thanks to the bounty it provides to places like Alberta, says Peter Buchanan, senior economist with CIBC World Markets. Between 2011 and 2045, more than $1.2 trillion in royalties are expected to have come from the oil sands, a figure nearly as large as the country’s GDP. It’s good money, though royalties disproportionately benefit Albertans over other Canadians.

[fellowtraveller]

What I really don’t understand is the Conservatives’ failure to appreciate the political risks

oh, I think he understands the poltical risks. He is also aware of the economic risk posed to Canada by not getting energy products to markets other than the USA. We already pay a hefty, hefty price in the form of discounted oil in part because we have only one customer for oil exports. It gets worse for gas exports , with massive amounts of new gas production on US soil, which hurts us badly. And finally, the US has professed a strong impetus and strategy to be energy self dependent in a decade.

That leaves us with plenty o' oil and nowhere to send it. We have an urgent need to get on with it, not in ten years when the bewildered blubbering at the collapse of our economy by 'progessives' gets deafening, but now.

Does that fit in with your comprehensive awareness of political and sconomic strategy in Canada?

[jacee]

As it should be. The chutzpah of insisting Canada's hands remain off Alberta's oil wealth while Alberta is free to walk all over anyone they need to cash in that wealth is a little disturbing.

I've also never bought into the idea that BC and Alberta would remain united in the event of western separation from Canada. That said I'd be looking to hive Vancouver Island off BC so what the rest of BC does is their business.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/04/17/pump-rage

Canada may be better positioned to withstand high fuel prices thanks to the bounty it provides to places like Alberta, says Peter Buchanan, senior economist with CIBC World Markets. Between 2011 and 2045, more than $1.2 trillion in royalties are expected to have come from the oil sands, a figure nearly as large as the country’s GDP. It’s good money, though royalties disproportionately benefit Albertans over other Canadians.

I dunno but ... Alberta and their goon Harper can keep shoving tar sands down our throats but ... it's gonna end up on their shoes.

They're not much good at 'talking nice' are they?

The knives came out long ago, and now it's the big guns.

Maybe Alberta should make it a little more profitable and palatable to the rest of us, especially those in its path.

Instead the attitude seem to be gloating about their profit and having hissy fits at any suggestion of sharing, while demanding huge favours. 'Look out! ... pipeline comin through screw you!'

It's so incompetent as a business strategy, it just makes no sense.

What do they think ... Harper's going to send the army in to force the pipeline(s) through?

Well ... they have experience with that in Afghanistan.

[cybercoma]

I think it's just coming to light now.

Put your faith in people, not politicians. Less disappointing.

I'm delighted that people are calling attention to this, but I enjoy analysing politics and politicians. I would have hoped this would have been something that the NDP themselves would have caught and brought to light. I feel that they've dropped the ball. Besides, I'm partisan, but I want people to know that I'm not against criticizing the party that I favour.

[cybercoma]

We have an urgent need to get on with it, not in ten years when the bewildered blubbering at the collapse of our economy by 'progessives' gets deafening, but now.

I seriously can't stop laughing right now. This makes for awesome political entertainment.

I mean this with the utmost sincerity when I say that I'm not laughing at you. You take a perfectly legitimate position on the issue based on your ideological priorities.

What's funny is the irony of what you said here. I'm absolutely certain there are many others that feel the same way as you. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the CPC themselves have taken this position. What's ironic is that environmentalists have been saying the exact same thing for awhile now. However, when they use those exact same words, they're considered alarmists.

Sometimes people coming from your ideological position will temper their message by saying they don't deny climate change, but they disagree with all of the claims they consider excessive and exaggerated, in other words the alarmism. What's hilarious is that these so-called alarmists have used almost your exact same words to discuss the environment. Too funny.

[jacee]

I'm delighted that people are calling attention to this, but I enjoy analysing politics and politicians. I would have hoped this would have been something that the NDP themselves would have caught and brought to light. I feel that they've dropped the ball. Besides, I'm partisan, but I want people to know that I'm not against criticizing the party that I favour.

I have a slightly different take on it: I think they are supposed to speak for us about issues we bring forward to them ... like this one.

I trust no political party to act in our interests rather than their own. That's why we have to tell them what concerns us.

[cybercoma]

I have a slightly different take on it: I think they are supposed to speak for us about issues we bring forward to them ... like this one.

I trust no political party to act in our interests rather than their own. That's why we have to tell them what concerns us.

Fair enough, but I believe something this significant, which is buried in legislation, ought to be outed by the opposition, who then demands accountability from the government.

[jacee]

Investors are the casualties in a booming oil patch

Alberta’s oil patch is roaring. Oil prices are flying, pipelines are pumping millions of barrels a day, and companies are engaged in a rollicking spending spree. Every 2½ weeks, companies shove another billion dollars into oil sands projects. Drilling rigs across the province are tapping big new pools of oil. And firms desperate for skilled workers are scouring the globe to help them get on with ambitious growth plans. Western Canadian oil output is expected to surge by more than a third to 3.6 million barrels a day by 2018.

Alberta’s energy frenzy has all the makings of a hollering rodeo party. But there’s one group conspicuously missing out on the action: investors. In the midst of a boot-stomping boom oil and gas has been among the country’s worst-performing sectors of the stock market. Since the global economic crisis, benchmark oil prices have soared from below $40 (U.S.) a barrel to above $100. Many Canadian energy stocks, however, have been left in the dust.

Confidence in Canada’s energy sector is being shaken by a host of issues making investors unsure about the payoff from Alberta’s boom. The reasons for worry are many and varied, but they collectively point to a deeper issue. Faith in Canada’s energy business is eroding.

...

Those who once viewed the oil sands in particular as a glittering money factory suddenly have important new reasons to be skeptical. Despite the vast sums pouring into Alberta and Saskatchewan oil fields, the earning power of the

sector is being strained, and its ability to fund its growth while also spinning big profits is now under question. That challenge is critical, since success for the energy sector’s development is key to Canada’s overall economic performance.

I can understand why oil sands leaders are panicked about their markets.

What I can't understand is their juvenile reliance on high-handed attitudes and heavy handed tactics that don't stand a chance of succeeding against public opinion. It's as if public opinion doesn't matter ... when in fact nothing matters more.

Harper's dictator rule on overruling energy review processes is not a solution but another complication, creating stronger public opinion against the pipelines, and further weakening investor confidence.

[eyeball]

It's so incompetent as a business strategy, it just makes no sense.

That finite supply of oil is increasingly exposing gasoline prices at the pumps in Edmonton and Montreal to political upheaval in places as geographically remote from Canada as the oil fields of South Sudan.

The writing is clearly on the wall, if peak oil isn't already here it'll be coming soon enough to an economy near you. We should be conserving our oil for our nation's long term needs. Keeping the energy here in Canada and letting the global economy come and use it in situ would make the most economic sense. Alberta could be a longer term major manufacturing centre instead of just another short lived gas station for the world.

Edited April 24, 2012 by eyeball

[jacee]

The writing is clearly on the wall, if peak oil isn't already here it'll be coming soon enough to an economy near you. We should be conserving our oil for our nation's long term needs. Keeping the energy here in Canada and letting the global economy come and use it in situ would make the most economic sense. Alberta could be a longer term major manufacturing centre instead of just another short lived gas station for the world.

I agree.

It's greed for SHORT TERM PROFITS that drives the pipeline projects.

Instead, there should be planning for long term stable employment and maximizing the benefit of the oil sands for Canadians.

Alberta multinational oil interests, however, have no stake in the welfare of Canadians, which leaves governments to construct a regulatory framework that keeps the jobs and the benefits largely in Canada.

We've seen Harper's 'plan' ... override the review process and ship the oil out asap for quick profit. Harper does the bidding of big oil, to the detriment of Canada and Canadians.

It's a disturbing thought ... the Prime Minister selling out Canadians.

Does he think we haven't noticed?

[eyeball]

We've seen Harper's 'plan' ... override the review process and ship the oil out asap for quick profit. Harper does the bidding of big oil, to the detriment of Canada and Canadians.

It's a disturbing thought ... the Prime Minister selling out Canadians.

Does he think we haven't noticed?

I just don't know how many people notice actually. Not enough to matter I think.

For example, the federal Liberals and Tories have both acted to dispossess my region of it's access to the fish that swim in our local waters and the provincial Liberals/Progressive Conservatives, the so-called free-enterprise party(s), have likewise done the same thing with our timber resources.

Notice how many Canadians respond however by telling us to relocate and move. Where and why when it's obvious the same process is underway everywhere you look?

[Topaz]

Exellent. These so-called regulatory bodies are useless. They take forever, and usually kill projects because of some stupid beetle. We need more energy in Canada, and we need less expensive energy in Canada. We also need more jobs in Canada. These energy projects provide all 3. Kudos to Mr. Harper!

There's a problem with your thinking. You and I in Ontario will never get inexpensive energy and those jobs are going to Alberta not Ontario, so if you want all this, when are you moving to Alberta?

[fellowtraveller]

Instead, there should be planning for long term stable employment and maximizing the benefit of the oil sands for Canadians.

Maybe Harper should develop a national energy strategy that involves developing markets other than the USA. Do you think that might help with stable employment and maximizing benefits? I think you should email him as a suggestion.

[fellowtraveller]

You and I in Ontario will never get inexpensive energy

Do you mean you do not support McGuintys purchase of green energy at 10 times the cost of other sources?

[jacee]

Do you mean you do not support McGuintys purchase of green energy at 10 times the cost of other sources?

Do you mean you think Ontario (or anywhere else in Canada) is going to get cheap oil from Alberta?

Not going to happen.We buy at world prices, despite the fact that we subsidize the oil sands.

The oil isn't going to be refined in Canada, so we'll be paying for shipping it out, someone else's workers to refine it, taxes to another country, and shipping it back.

Then there are the environmental costs, that taxpayers will no doubt be expected to subsidize too.

All actual costs considered, I'll take the Ontario plan. Preparing for life-after-oil makes a lot of sense to me.

,

Edited April 25, 2012 by jacee

[eyeball]

The oil isn't going to be refined in Canada, so we'll be paying for shipping it out, someone else's workers to refine it, taxes to another country, and shipping it back.

Not to mention it will likely be used to invade us.

You got yer Quisling's then you got's yer Chamberlain's and then there's yer Harper's.

Edited April 25, 2012 by eyeball

[Wilber]

Exellent. These so-called regulatory bodies are useless. They take forever, and usually kill projects because of some stupid beetle. We need more energy in Canada, and we need less expensive energy in Canada. We also need more jobs in Canada. These energy projects provide all 3. Kudos to Mr. Harper!

How does building piplines to ports for shipping oil to other countries make for more and less expensive energy for Canada? BC gets very little economic benefit from the proposed Enbridge pipeline but assumes most of the environmental risk.