Harper takes over 'energy projects' decisions

[jacee]

I am interested in facts. Not your religious beliefs. How would you react if some Christian started using the rapture as an argument for some policy? Your argument is no different.

Ah ... so you can eat money?

[cybercoma]

Exxon Valdez Spill, 15 Years Later: Damage Lingers

15 years later the effects are barely measurable. In 30-50 they will be completely gone.

Twenty Years Later

Nothing in that link suggests there are any serious problems 20 years later.

Classic TimG. Present him with facts that contradict his opinions and he completely ignores them or contends they're wrong without any proof whatsoever.

Edited April 26, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Can someone tell me why we have been transporting oil by tanker along the eastern seaboard and into the bay of fundy for many decades but for some reason the coast of BC is untouchable. The bay of fundy was very nearly named one of the new wonders of the world, yet no one is protesting the oil shipments there. Some of you are using that oil right now.

Can you explain why we have been transporting oil by tanker along the western seaboard this entire time and nobody has been protesting until now? Or do you not see the issue here?

[bleeding heart]

What I can't understand is why Western Canadians are not more pissed about Harper taking control of energy project decisions. Oh sure, it looks good now that their cowboy is in office. What happens when there's an NDP or Liberal Prime Minister that can unilaterally make decisions about energy projects. Can you imagine if Trudeau gave himself that power? Alberta should be pissed about this, but they can't see the forest through the trees.

Quite right, especially since there was a Trudeau-era energy policy that they're still smarting over.

[bleeding heart]

Hey, why don't you stop implying that those nasty Yellow Peril is planning on invading?

He's implying no such thing; he's responding to others who make the claim of the threat.

Further, these others are explicit about it, not implicit; they're here on this website; and they are, by most appearances, your conservative compatriots.

Therefore, you call "racist" for the folks condeming the "yellow peril" racists, while leaving the actual "yellow peril" racists* alone....which is, I put it to you, at least a kind of implicit support for their views.

(I mean they're "racists" according to your measurements, not my own.)

Edited April 26, 2012 by bleeding heart

[TimG]

Classic TimG. Present him with facts that contradict his opinions and he completely ignores them or contends they're wrong without any proof whatsoever.

From the link:

As a result, "while overall population numbers in western Prince William Sound have recovered, local populations in heavily oiled areas have not recovered as quickly."

"Prior to the spill, the rate of decline was 18 percent per year, but since 1989 that rate has increased to 31 percent," the group stated. "The growing impact of global warming in the Arctic and the melting of glaciers, caused by the burning of oil and other fossil fuels, may also be a factor in this decline."

So we have localized reductions in seal populations and a single species of bird seems to have been effected but it could have been caused by something else. Minor problems. No big deal.

The only people who are ignoring facts are the people claiming that nature cannot recover from oil spills. Oil spills are a messy short term problem that should be to be avoided as much as possible but if the the worst happens it is a problem that we can live with.

Edited April 26, 2012 by TimG

[Wilber]

The only thing that is clear is that we do not know the long term effect of oil spills and that they are still affecting the environment decades after the fact.

It is up to Alberta and the oil companies to convince BC that the risk is acceptable and these pipelines are in BC's best interest, not the other way around.

Finally, stop insulting us with this BS about brotherhood and being good neighbours. For Alberta and the oil companies this is about one thing only. Money. Brotherhood and neighbourliness have sweet FA to do with it.

[bleeding heart]

The only thing that is clear is that we do not know the long term effect of oil spills and that they are still affecting the environment decades after the fact.

It is up to Alberta and the oil companies to convince BC that the risk is acceptable and these pipelines are in BC's best interest, not the other way around.

Finally, stop insulting us with this BS about brotherhood and being good neighbours. For Alberta and the oil companies this is about one thing only. Money. Brotherhood and neighbourliness have sweet FA to do with it.

Especially coming from someone who likes to cite Kevin O'Leary...who likes to lecture everyone that (and I quote) "mixing economics and morality is evil."

(A wanton contradiction in itself, as O'Leary isn't thoughtful enough to even comnprehend, but that's a separate argument, I suppose.)

[jacee]

From the link:

So we have localized reductions in seal populations and a single species of bird seems to have been effected but it could have been caused by something else. Minor problems. No big deal.

The only people who are ignoring facts are the people claiming that nature cannot recover from oil spills. Oil spills are a messy short term problem that should be to be avoided as much as possible but if the the worst happens it is a problem that we can live with.

"We" can, can "we"?

Ya, it doesn't affect the oil companies, does it?

And that's all that matters isn't it?

___________________________

A couple of articles of interest:

A flavour of the oil sands ...

How three small businesses tapped the oil sands

Canadian oil companies in other countries ...

They’ve come a long way to protect their Amazon home

Dressed in brightly coloured headgear and clothing, these indigenous leaders from another world might not look like they represent a real threat to one of Canada’s nternational energy giants. But looks can be deceiving.

The Achuar people, who have lived for thousands of years in the rain forest, have a history of taking on big business and successfully resisting oil operations in their territories. It is a determination driven by experience with an earlier operation nearby which, they say, contaminated nearby rivers depleted wildlife and made children sick

Occidental Petroleum, which pulled out of Peru, denies it caused any negative health effects, a case that is now before the courts. Now the Achuar have in their sightlines on Canadian energy giant Talisman Energy, which is doing exploratory drilling in their territory without full community support, they say.

Talisman, whose officials will meet with the ndigenous leaders in Calgary next week, is paying attention. It has learned through experience in war-torn Sudan, where it was accused of complicity in genocide, that a social contract is as important as business contracts for success. Talisman has since made corporate social responsibility a key part of its mandate and has in the past stated it will not work in Peru where it does not have the agreement of the community. It has also put n place environmental measures to minimize the possibility of environmental impact.

Talisman continues to state that it only operates where it has local community support and consent and says it has agreements with federations representing 66 communities in Peru. And they say the ndigenous leaders visiting Canada don’t represent all Achuar people, but a federation“that groups a number of communities who do not want to see oil exploration in their ands — and we respect that.”

The indigenous leaders visiting Canada meanwhile, say Talisman has the approval of only a handful of communities, not the majority, and that it is using corporate social responsibility measures to pit communities against each other and spark conflict.

The federal government, whose support for Canadian resource businesses overseas ncreasingly includes foreign aid dollars, should also be paying attention.

A couple of things:

Oil/pipeline companies engage in the same divide-and-conquer tactics here in Canada, targeting (bribing?) some Indigenous communities or some members of a community to 'sign on', and then claiming full/majority community support, when it isn't. In fact, this is the same tactic used throughout Canada's history to divest Indigenous Peoples of their lands and resources (land 'surrenders'). When Canada encountered too much resistance from traditional Indigenous governance councils, it simply outlawed the councils and imposed its own governance 'Band Councils' by force (1924): RCMP officers removed traditional councils at gunpoint, stole meeting records, treaty wampum belts, etc. Throughout our history, Indigenous 'resisters' simply 'disappeared'.

Another issue is Canada's funding, via 'foreign aid', of corporate efforts to divide-and-conquer Indigenous communities resisting oil operations overseas. I don't think Canadians are really aware that taxpayers' money is spent primarily to pave the way (through bribery?) for Canadian companies to extract resources from other countries, against the wishes of communities.

Of course, in Canada the oil companies don't have to worry about community support for their operations as Harper can and has just usurped the decision-making for himself, to avoid that 'messy' issue.

I'll bet he wishes he could just do that in other countries as well. We are now in a situation where Canada itself has undermined and destroyed resistance to oil pipeline development, while pretending to 'play nice' in other countries.

Nowhere is Canadian 'apathy' so apparent as in our acceptance of the destruction of habitats and health of Indigenous communities to benefit corporate activities, most of which don't benefit the people of Canada since the benefit/profits go into a few rich pockets, along with a substantial amount of our tax money (corporate subsidies, foreign 'aid', corporate tax cuts, etc.)

But of course it isn't just apathy but legitimate fear: Harper has labelled opponents of the oil industries as "foreign-supported radicals", only a small step from "terrorists", which gives him the legal right to incarcerate people indefinitely without justification. Wait for it ...

Edited April 26, 2012 by jacee

[TimG]

The only thing that is clear is that we do not know the long term effect of oil spills and that they are still affecting the environment decades after the fact.

If the effects are so small that they cannot conclusively point to real harms then there is no evidence of harm. These are the facts. There is further case that needs to be made.

Finally, stop insulting us with this BS about brotherhood and being good neighbours.

It is not BS. It accurately describes the situation. I know you don't like because you would rather pretend you are beating up on 'evil' oil companies. But you are not. You are screwing your neighbors because the oil companies will simply go elsewhere. It is Alberta and the people of Alberta that lose if they can't get their oil to markets.

If BC refuses that access the people of Alberta will suffer. Being good neighbors requires that we accept the pipeline provided an adequate regulatory regime is put in place.

Vague claims that 'we don't know what the effects of a hypothetical oil spill will be' are not a reasonable justification to screw our neighbors.

On top of it: there is an opportunity for BC to build refining capacity. There is already a refiner in Burnaby that would benefit from an larger pipeline.

Edited April 26, 2012 by TimG

[Wilber]

If the effects are so small that they cannot conclusively point to real harms then there is no evidence of harm. These are the facts. There is further case that needs to be made.

It is not BS. It accurately describes the situation. I know you don't like because you would rather pretend you are beating up on 'evil' oil companies. But you are not. You are screwing your neighbors because the oil companies will simply go elsewhere. It is Alberta and the people of Alberta that lose if they can't get their oil to markets.

If BC refuses that access the people of Alberta will suffer. Being good neighbors requires that we accept the pipeline provided an adequate regulatory regime is put in place.

Vague claims that 'we don't know what the effects of a hypothetical oil spill will be' are not a reasonable justification to screw our neighbors.

On top of it: there is an opportunity for BC to build refining capacity. There is already a refiner in Burnaby that would benefit from an larger pipeline.

It's total BS. Alberta gets its way or else. BC has no say in the matter. Love your sense of neighborliness. Why don't you pressure on eastern Canada to build a pipeline and take your oil. No tankers involved there and the oil would actually serve Canada's energy needs by reducing its dependence on imported oil. Nope, wer taking the shortest distance to the big bucks buddy so get out our way.

You guaranty that increased capacity will be used to build refining capacity in BC then we can talk. If not, it's just more BS.

[Wilber]

Can someone tell me why we have been transporting oil by tanker along the eastern seaboard and into the bay of fundy for many decades but for some reason the coast of BC is untouchable. The bay of fundy was very nearly named one of the new wonders of the world, yet no one is protesting the oil shipments there. Some of you are using that oil right now.

To start, you could look at a map. Do the eastern tankers take any routes like this?

LINK

I'm using this map because it was the best I could find of the proposed routes, not because I necessarily agree with the position being expressed.

The route from the Kinder Morgan pipeline would take over 350 tankers a year through the length of Vancouver harbour, through Georgia Straight and the Gulf Islands. Add those to the Alaskan tankers headed for Washington and you will have 800 tankers a year passing through the Straight of Juan DeFuca headed for Georgia Straight and Puget Sound. A major spill in the country's busiest harbour and third largest city would be a disaster that would not only severely effect the city but the economies of the whole province and country. The risks may or may not be great but either way, the consequences are huge. No doubt TimG could live with them though.

Second, you could ask why those tankers are in the Bay of Fundy. Because Eastern Canada didn't want a pipeline from Alberta because it could import oil cheaper and without it they would freeze in the dark. The proposed pipelines to BC do nothing to help Canada's energy requirements. If anything, they do the opposite.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Wilber

[PIK]

If oil spills are so dangerous,then the planet should be totally screwed with the 1000's of oil spills during WW1 and WW2. So what is it?

[Wilber]

If oil spills are so dangerous,then the planet should be totally screwed with the 1000's of oil spills during WW1 and WW2. So what is it?

They did cause a lot of damage but most of them were in open ocean and the world had other things on its mind. The world used much less oil then and the normal WW2 tanker carried around 16,000 tons. Todays largest tankers weigh in at close to 500,000 tons. It also depends a lot on where the oil is spilled. Exxon Valdez wasn't anywhere near the largest spill but it had an environmental effect that was much greater than some far larger spills. Local tides and currents will have a major influence on the amount of damage done.

[TimG]

It's total BS. Alberta gets its way or else. BC has no say in the matter.

BC has complete control over the regulatory process that governs the tankers. Whatever process is put in place has to meet the needs of BC. All I am saying is refusing to allow any pipeline because of irrational and unjustified fears of a spill is a ridiculous screw your neighbor attitude.

You guaranty that increased capacity will be used to build refining capacity in BC then we can talk. If not, it's just more BS.

Right now the BC refinery is being out bid for the oil coming down the Kinder Morgan pipe. Increase the capacity of that line and there would be more supply and lower prices for the BC refinery.

That said, a guaranteed supply for the BC refinery is a reasonable condition for any pipeline to proceed. I have never said that BC should simply rubber stamp the pipeline. What I am saying is any conditions must be reasonable enough to allow the pipeline to proceed.

[TimG]

The route from the Kinder Morgan pipeline would take over 350 tankers a year through the length of Vancouver harbour, through Georgia Straight and the Gulf Islands. Add those to the Alaskan tankers headed for Washington and you will have 800 tankers a year passing through the Straight of Juan DeFuca headed for Georgia Straight and Puget Sound.

And if we do nothing we still have 550 tankers a year.

You are making a lot of fuss for 30% increase in traffic (800 - 350 + 350/3).

Edited April 26, 2012 by TimG

[Wilber]

And if we do nothing we still have 550 tankers a year.

You are making a lot of fuss for 30% increase in traffic (800 - 350 + 350/3).

It's a 300% increase through Vancouver harbour. Right now there are a maximum of 10 PM. This would increase to 30 PM.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Wilber

[jacee]

BC has complete control over the regulatory process that governs the tankers. Whatever process is put in place has to meet the needs of BC. All I am saying is refusing to allow any pipeline because of irrational and unjustified fears of a spill is a ridiculous screw your neighbor attitude.

Right now the BC refinery is being out bid for the oil coming down the Kinder Morgan pipe. Increase the capacity of that line and there would be more supply and lower prices for the BC refinery.

That said, a guaranteed supply for the BC refinery is a reasonable condition for any pipeline to proceed. I have never said that BC should simply rubber stamp the pipeline. What I am saying is any conditions must be reasonable enough to allow the pipeline to proceed.

It is too be hoped that the Alberta/oil/pipeline people doing the negotiating are better at diplomacy than you are: An ultimatum is a really poor place to start.

Am I getting through to you and others here who claim to speak on Alberta's behalf?

If the rest of Canada, especially BC, feels that pipelines are being bullied and bulldozed through forcefully, then people will push back forcefully. Arrogant, controlling attitudes and dirty tricks will meet resistance.

And those of you expressing such arrogant, controlling and dismissive ATTITUDES here on MLW are not doing Alberta/oil/pipeline people any favours. You are inciting opposition with your ATTITUDES.

[TimG]

It is too be hoped that the Alberta/oil/pipeline people doing the negotiating are better at diplomacy than you are: An ultimatum is a really poor place to start.

I am not issuing any ultimatums. I am simply stating the rather low opinion I have of people claiming the pipelines should be categorically rejected. As Vancouver resident living close to the river my neighborhood could be impacted by a spill which means I am not speaking from personal self interest.

And those of you expressing such arrogant, controlling and dismissive ATTITUDES here on MLW are not doing Alberta/oil/pipeline people any favours. You are inciting opposition with your ATTITUDES.

The people with the bad attitudes are the people saying the pipeline should be stopped. All I have said is people who are worried about the pipeline should lay out the conditions required for pipeline acceptance and see where discussions go. e.g. BC can and should demand a piece of royalty revenues, guaranteed supply for BC based refineries and a strict regulatory and inspection regime.

But we can't have those discussions with people who refuse to even come to the table to talk. People who refuse to come to the table deserve to be railroaded.

So spare me selfish rhetoric designed to make you feel your absurd position has any merit.

Edited April 26, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

But we can't have those discussions with people who refuse to even come to the table to talk. People who refuse to come to the table deserve to be railroaded.

So spare me selfish rhetoric designed to make you feel your absurd position has any merit.

here ya go... now some, certainly not waldo, might tell you to go pound sand!

... contingency planning, hey?

TransCanada looks east as Gateway pipeline gets bogged down

TransCanada Corp. is proposing a major shift in the way oil moves across Canada, urging the oil patch to consider a massive $5.6-billion new pipeline system that would carry large volumes of western crude to refineries in Ontario, Quebec and beyond.

The East Coast Pipeline Project, as TransCanada has dubbed it in presentations to energy companies, could do more than supply the east with fuels made from oil sands crude. It could serve as an alternative to Northern Gateway, the controversial West Coast export pipeline project from TransCanada competitor Enbridge Inc. that has faced a wall of opposition from first nations and environmental groups.

[Wilber]

What I am saying is any conditions must be reasonable enough to allow the pipeline to proceed.

Of course, reasonable enough to both sides otherwise it is a no go. Alberta does not have a divine right to build pipelines across other provinces based on what it feels is reasonable.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Wilber

[Wilber]

TransCanada Corp. is proposing a major shift in the way oil moves across Canada, urging the oil patch to consider a massive $5.6-billion new pipeline system that would carry large volumes of western crude to refineries in Ontario, Quebec and beyond.

The East Coast Pipeline Project, as TransCanada has dubbed it in presentations to energy companies, could do more than supply the east with fuels made from oil sands crude. It could serve as an alternative to Northern Gateway, the controversial West Coast export pipeline project from TransCanada competitor Enbridge Inc. that has faced a wall of opposition from first nations and environmental groups.

Should have been done forty years ago. Stupid shipping raw product offshore when there is a big market for it here.

[TimG]

Of course, reasonable enough to both sides otherwise it is a no go. Alberta does not have a divine right to build pipelines across other provinces based on what it feels is reasonable.

I never said that. My position has always been that there are reasonable criteria that BC can accept that would allow the line to proceed. My beef is with the people that refuse to accept the pipeline under any conditions.

[Wilber]

I never said that. My position has always been that there are reasonable criteria that BC can accept that would allow the line to proceed. My beef is with the people that refuse to accept the pipeline under any conditions.

I am not one of those people. On the other hand I will not sit by and be railroaded by a government that has already made up its mind and is intent on ramming this thing through with no regard for the concerns of those who stand to be most effected. Every move this government has made including the OP's subject of this thread points in that direction. Furthermore, the situation is not helped when those concerns are belittled by those who will suffer no consequences if they are wrong. All it will do is make people push back even harder.

[eyeball]

I am not one of those people. On the other hand I will not sit by and be railroaded by a government that has already made up its mind and is intent on ramming this thing through with no regard for the concerns of those who stand to be most effected. Every move this government has made including the OP's subject of this thread points in that direction. Furthermore, the situation is not helped when those concerns are belittled by those who will suffer no consequences if they are wrong. All it will do is make people push back even harder.

Well said.

I'm not strictly one of those people either but I am DEEPLY concerned that the same government responsible for numerous fisheries disasters all over this country is poised protect (not!) 600 fish bearing systems from a mega-project that is being so fast-tracked one would think it was a last-ditch emergency war-time homeland defence measure.

If this is the approach the government intends to take it might as well regard me as an enemy. Alberta and Ottawa can both go piss up a rope and then hang themselves with it.